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

RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 02:46:04 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02F4442D@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Given that the DOM exposes the [prefix] property of EIIs ( and AIIs ) via the prefix property of the Node interface I do not understand why you would draw that conclusion.
 
Gudge

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Sat 08/02/2003 01:20 
	To: Martin Gudgin; David Fallside; xml-dist-app@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries
	
	

	Doesn't this mean that someone cannot use a DOM parser to impl an
	intermediary? That sucks.
	
	What about ns prefixes of qualified attributes? Are those also
	infoset properties of AIIs? If so the same problem with many parsers
	I assume.
	
	Sanjiva.
	
	----- Original Message -----
	From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
	To: "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
	Cc: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
	Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 1:03 AM
	Subject: RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries
	
	
	>
	> Section 2.7.4[1] states
	>
	> "All XML infoset properties of a message MUST be preserved with the
	> following exceptions"
	>
	> Given that ns prefixes are properties of element information items ( for
	> better or worse ), they have to be preserved.
	>
	> Gudge
	>
	> [1]
	> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-soap12-part1-20021219/#soapinterminfoset
	>
	> > -----Original Message-----
	> > From: David Fallside [mailto:fallside@us.ibm.com]
	> > Sent: 07 February 2003 17:56
	> > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
	> > Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
	> > Subject: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> > This question came up during an implementer's interop test
	> > session: Is an intermediary obliged to preserve namespace
	> > prefixes? The spec says nothing explicitly (that we could
	> > find) but appears to implicitly oblige intermediaries to
	> > preserve them. What did the WG intend?
	> >
	> >
	> > ............................................
	> > David C. Fallside, IBM
	> > Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
	> > Int  Ph: 544.9665
	> > fallside@us.ibm.com
	> >
	> >
	
	
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2003 05:46:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:13 GMT