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

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

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 14:14:50 -0400
To: "Nilo Mitra (EUS)" <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC47B39D1.2AD81AA9-ON85256D02.0064A5CC@lotus.com>

>> One such mechanism is looking for the base URI in the encapsulating 
protocol in
which the SOAP message may be embedded for transport. 

Suggestion:

One such mechanism is for the protocol binding to establish a base URI, 
possibly by reference to the encapsulating protocol in which the SOAP 
message is embedded for transport. 


The original seems to suggest that this is all rather informal.  My 
feeling is that the rest of SOAP sees what the binding establishes.  If 
the binding establishes a base URI, then there is one.  One obvious way 
for a binding specification to do that is to draw on the mechanisms of the 
protocol it's using.   BTW:  is this something that the HTTP binding 
should do (I.e. establish a base?)  Not sure.  Probably not worth worrying 
about this late in the game.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Nilo Mitra (EUS)" <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
04/03/03 06:12 PM

 
        To:     "'XMLP PUBLIC'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, XMLP WG Private List 
<w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: Request for some explanatory primer text on CR issue 420



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 Tuesday, 8 April 2003 14:21:53 GMT

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