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

RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries

From: Matt Long <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:28:36 -0600
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "'David Fallside'" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003901c2cf6d$9ba32360$b678aaac@gulag>

I assume that 'preserve' and 'reuse' are distinct, i.e., that an
intermediary is not required to 'reuse' prefixes for inserted headers.


-Matt Long
 
 
> 
> >
> > 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 07:41:51 GMT

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