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: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:44:51 -0600
To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'David Fallside'" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000401c2d145$43ce3010$1330a3ac@gulag>

(1) What happens with default properties of headers, e.g., WS-Security
"Password" element carries a "Type" attribute with a default value of
"wss:PasswordText."  Can a default value be inserted OR omitted
depending on case?
(2) Must preservation in terms of values be absolute, e.g., can MU="1"
be represented as MU="true"
(3) Must the encoding attribute of the xml declaration (if any) be
preserved, if over HTTP.

-Matt Long

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 2:27 PM
> To: mlong@phalanxsys.com; Sanjiva Weerawarana; David Fallside;
xml-dist-
> app@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Monday, 10 February 2003 16:00:04 GMT

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