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: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:13:30 -0400
To: "Nilo Mitra (EUS)" <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB006F0B2.6FF50BAB-ON85256D03.0064B693@lotus.com>

Thank you!

------------------------------------------------------------------
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
04/09/2003 10:04 AM

 
        To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        cc:     "'noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        Subject:        RE: Request for some explanatory primer text on CR issue 420



The amended sentence is much more accurate. I'll incorporate it, if the
group agrees.
Thank you
Nilo

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
 > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:15 PM
 > To: Nilo Mitra (EUS)
 > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
 > Subject: RE: Request for some explanatory primer text on CR issue 420
 > 
 > 
 > >> 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 Wednesday, 9 April 2003 14:20:23 GMT

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