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

Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding

From: Edwin Ortega <ortegae@wns.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:27:57 -0800
Message-ID: <013801c19ed4$ac8160e0$32a2583f@val6000>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "XML dist app" <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>; "XML dist app"
<xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding


>
> ----- 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 12:30:48 GMT

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