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

Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs

From: Asir S Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:35:23 -0400
Message-ID: <010b01c15e1a$ae88b500$883c010a@webmethods.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
<snip> [1]
"There were various points that people were pointing out:
 1) maybe we should also disallow forward references
..
Now let me detail the points.
 1) Some people felt forward references might be bad, other felt
my original proposal disallowed forward references. I propose to
keep forward references because they allow references from
headers to body, which might be necessary for things like
XMLDSIG, although any other referencing mechanism (most probably
XML IDREF) could be used instead of SOAP Encoding referencing."
</snip>

I guess you are referring to id and href mechanism for representing
multi-references.

In your proposal for Issue # 30 [2], you said that

"remove the mentions of the attribute information items 'id'
and 'href' from sections 2 of both parts of the spec, for these
are encoding-specific attributes,"

OK, so id and href are encoding-specific attributes.

First, a question of clarification - you used the word necessary; why would
XMLDSIG use SOAP Encoding specific attributes for referencing? Are they
currently using it?

Second, like others, I also believe that forward references are bad. 'Cos,
there is very limited payoff for a big cost.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0231.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0244.html

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu

webMethods, Inc.
703-460-2513 or asirv@webmethods.com
http://www.webmethods.com/
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 08:30:33 GMT

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