RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries

Yes, you need to preserve the Infoset properties of the stuff that's there ( modulo the exceptions listed ). 
If you insert new stuff you can use whatever prefixes you like.
 
Gudge

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@phalanxsys.com] 
 Sent: Sat 08/02/2003 12:28 
 To: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; Martin Gudgin; 'David Fallside'; xml-dist-app@w3.org 
 Cc: 
 Subject: RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries
 
 

 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 15:27:01 UTC