W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2001

Re: proposed resolution to issue #30

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:31:02 -0400
Message-ID: <3BD6FAD6.7040603@sun.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
CC: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek,

I disagree that the URI value of an actor attribute
cannot be dereferenced. Nothing in the text suggests
that it can't be used in this matter.

Cheers,

Chris

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>  Noah,
>  I agree that as SOAP is an XML format it has URIs all over it.
> But the only ones that something can reasonably attempt to
> resolve are the hrefs and other application-dependent URIs.
>  Namespace URIs are not to be resolved by definition [1].
>  Actor URIs are not to be resolved by definition [2].
>  EncodingStyle URIs are not to be resolved by definition [3].
>  The only URIs that are designed to be resolved are hrefs and
> maybe some application-defined ones. Well, we cannot rule the
> latter. Hrefs are a matter of the Encoding and I don't see a
> reason for moving it to the core.
> 
>  An href URI can or cannot be referenced when it's needed.
>  I think the options we to solve this situation have are:
>  1) SOAP Encoding does not guarantee href URIs to be
> dereferencable unless they are of the form "#<id>". A transport
> binding, an extension or an application MAY add other guarantees.
>  2) SOAP Encoding href URIs are always dereferencable, it is the
> responsibility of the sender to make sure the URIs will be
> dereferencable, possibly by means of a transport binding, an
> extension or the application. In case of a failure when
> dereferencing an href URI the processor will generate a
> SOAP-ENC:UnreachableReference fault. (We might want to specify how
> to add the URI that was unreachable to the detail in the generated
> Fault.)
> 
>  I don't have preference towards any of the presented two
> options.
> 
>  If I forgot about some URIs that can be present in the message,
> please mention them. 8-)
> 
>                             Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                             Idoox
>                             http://www.idoox.com/
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#dt-NSName
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapactor
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapencattr
> 
> 
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
> 
>  > Jacek Kopecky writes:
>  >
>  > >> AFAIK, SOAP+attachments uses this Encoding mechanism
>  > and
>  > >> The core SOAP does not have any referencing
>  > >> mechanism for it doesn't need one. It's the
>  > >> data that may need references, thus
>  > >>it's the encodings that may want to specify
>  > >> referencing.
>  >
>  > I see it a bit differently.  S+A and Dime are meant to work with unencoded
>  > body and header entries as well as encoded ones.  The very fact that we
>  > are "Web" services and using XML formats implies that message content can
>  > include URIs, regardless of how they are represented lexically, what
>  > encoding is used, whether they are set off separately in attributes or
>  > elements or in running text content, etc.
>  >
>  > In all these cases, the question arises:  "are there any rules about which
>  > URI's will successfully resolve at any given node and at any given point
>  > in time."  For SOAP in general, the answer must be "no", except insofar as
>  > we establish URI's for the envelope itself.  If I put the URI
>  > http://www.ibm.com/noahsxray.jpg into a SOAP message, there should be no
>  > conformance requirement on SOAP processors that anything be available at
>  > that URI.
>  >
>  > By contrast, if I'm using SOAP + Attachements,  and if I use a content ID
>  > that in fact is properly declared in the MIME envelope, then indeed the
>  > reference MUST resolve.  This is true regardless of whether I am using
>  > encodings or not.  In fact, it's true regardless of whether the URI
>  > reference appears explicitly in the envelope or is just implied by its
>  > contents.
>  >
>  > I am recommending that we make clear that core SOAP has no such
>  > conformance requirement, but that features such as S+A or DIME can indeed
>  > indicate URI's which MUST successfully resolve.  I have recommended that
>  > we open an issue to consider this question.  Thank you.
>  >
>  > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments#SOAPReferenceToAttachements
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
>  > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
>  > One Rogers Street
>  > Cambridge, MA 02142
>  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 13:34:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT