W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Request for some explanatory primer text on CR issue 420

From: Nilo Mitra (EUS) <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:12:54 -0600
Message-ID: <77BEF8ACD6CB1B4DA605D9D9CF554AEB1269BA@eamrcnt727.exu.ericsson.se>
To: "'XMLP PUBLIC'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, XMLP WG Private List <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org>

Here are "a few words...like a note or a paragraph" that the WG asked me (see email below) 
to add to the SOAP 1.2 Primer [1] towards the resolution of CR issue 420 [2]. I propose the 
following addition to [1].

1. Add the following paragraph as the second-last paragraph to section 3.1 of the Primer:

"If the env:role attribute has an empty value, i.e., env:role="", it means that the
relative URI identifying the role is resolved to the base URI for the SOAP message in question.
SOAP Version 1.2 does not define a base URI for a SOAP message, but defers to the mechanisms
defined in [XMLBase] for deriving the base URI, which can be used to make any relative URIs
absolute. One such mechanism is looking for the base URI in the encapsulating protocol in
which the SOAP message may be embedded for transport. (In fact, when SOAP messages are transported 
using HTTP, [SOAP Part2] section 7.1.2 defines the base URI as the Request-URI of the HTTP request, 
or the value of the HTTP Content-Location header.)"

I expect this will be discussed in next week's telcon prior to inclusion in the document.

Thanks,
Nilo

Nilo Mitra
Ericsson, Inc.
phone: + 1 212 843 8451
mobile: +1 516 476 7427
nilo.mitra@ericsson.com 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part0.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x420


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
 > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:54 PM
 > To: nilo.mitra@ericsson.com
 > Cc: XMLP WG Private List
 > Subject: Request for some explanatory primer text on CR issue 420
 > 
 > 
 > Nilo, 
 > 
 > in SOAP 1.2 Last Call draft, the spec used to say that 
 > omitting the role
 > attribute is equal to specifying the ultimateReceiver role; and that
 > specifying role="" - empty value - means the same. In the 
 > resolution to
 > Last Call issue 233 [1] we decided to remove the second part and thus
 > conform to xml:base interpretation of the empty value - a 
 > relative value
 > resolving to the current base URI.
 > 
 > The Candidate Rec issue 420 [2] mentions that the Last Call 
 > behavior was
 > still used in the Test Collection, so users may have gotten 
 > used to it.
 > 
 > As the current xml:base-compliant behavior may not be 
 > readily apparent,
 > we think a few words in the primer (like a note or a paragraph in
 > section 3.1) would be helpful.
 > 
 > Can you please reply ASAP stating the time-frame in which such
 > explanatory text could be added and propose it?
 > 
 > On behalf of the XMLP WG,
 > 
 >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > 
 >                    Senior Architect
 >                    Systinet Corporation
 >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > 
 > 
 > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x233
 > [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x420
 > 
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 18:13:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT