W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:53:36 -0000
Message-ID: <001a01c19ea5$f6e99460$807ba8c0@greyarea>
To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "XML dist app" <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>; "XML dist app"
<xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding


> Martin,
>
> MUST NOT be required is different than saying MUST NOT
> be used. IMO, we have tghe restriction on "required"
> on the part of a recipient of a message, but we do not,
> nor IMO can we preclude the receiving SOAP node from
> applying whatever processing floats their boat.

Oh absolutely, I'm just pointing out that we don't require schema processing
even though we do talk about schema types.

>
> A receiver *could* leverage the knowledge that the
> attributes named 'id' and 'idref' are implicitly typed
> as XML1.0 ID and IDREF, construct a DTD that it used
> to process the message.

Yes, I just wasn't clear that that was the approach we were taking. As I
said in my first mail, I was lacking some context. I now have the context
and I think we're on the same page

Thanks

Gudge

>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
> > To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
> > Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>; "XML dist app"
> > <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding
> >
> >
> >
> >>Only if one wanted to leverage the internal subset,
> >>other than that, you could treat them in the same
> >>manner as href and id.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, this may be the context I'm missing. Are we saying that we will
use
> > attributes with local names of ID and IDREF rather than attributes with
type
> > of ID and IDREF? If the former then we don't need DTD/schema processing
but
> > at the same time I guess I'm not entirely sure what the difference is
> > between ID/IDREF and id/href. If the latter then surely we need
DTD/schema
> > processing to determine which attributes are of type ID/IDREF
> >
> >
> >>It would certainly be much
> >>more convenient for implementations that did choose
> >>to leverage DTD processing.
> >>
> >
> > This leads me to think we're talking about type rather than local name
> >
> >
> >>Given that we're talking
> >>about encoding, which leverages XML Schema types, it
> >>is pretty clear to me that we're also imposing schema
> >>processing anyway, no?
> >>
> >
> > My understanding is that our spec specifically states that schema
processing
> > MUST NOT be required.
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 10:54:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT