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

RE: AFTF requirements list with comments, pre-2003/01/28 telcon (revised)

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:48:59 -0800
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01c001c2c8b1$c81ff7a0$4b0ba8c0@beasys.com>

Web architecture doesn't stipulate absolute URIs.  I would like to allow
frag ids, specifically so that parts could actually be fragments within an
xml document.  One example would be a soap with attachments package that
contains 2 xml documents, and the first refers to a part that is within the
2nd xml document.  I expect that in most cases, people would use absolute
URIs, but I can think of scenarios where they would want a fragment.  Let's
make this a bit more concrete.  I want to chunk a large xml document.  Say I
decide to split this into 2 documents. I could use an xinclude in the first
to refer to the 2nd, and I have an application that reads the first chunk,
then afterwards resolves the xinclude.  As XML requires a root note, the
XInclude has to point to a fragment in the 2nd document, specifically all
the children of the root node.

Now if a new version of XML allowed xml to not have a root node, like
external entities, this might be solved. :-)

I absolutely agree with carrying the media type.  Violently in fact.  These
documents, and parts, must be correctly self-describing.  Now that's web
architecture!

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:13 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AFTF requirements list with comments,
> pre-2003/01/28 telcon
> (revised)
>
>
> I stand corrected.  You're right of course.  Still, I would
> think that we
> want to follow web architecture.  As far as I know, that
> means that the
> resource which is a part should be identified by an absolute URI (not
> relative, NO fragment ID.)  References to the part as a whole
> should allow
> relative and absolute forms.  References within parts that have known
> media type should allow URI References, including fragment ID.
>
> Bottom line:  a part is named by an absolute URI.  References
> are in the
> form of URI references, but Fragid is a reference within the part.
> Specifically, two references that differ only in their fragid
> must resolve
> to the same part.
>
> Also:  on the phone call I suggested a requirement that the
> attachment
> implementation be capable of carrying a media type for each part.
>
> David:  does this sound right?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
> 01/30/2003 05:02 PM
>
>
>         To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
>         cc:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         Subject:        RE: AFTF requirements list with
> comments, pre-2003/01/28 telcon (revised)
>
>
> ../a has nothing to do with URI References vs URIs.  ../a is
> allowed by
> URIs
> and by URI references.  You might be thinking of absolute
> URIs however :-)
>
> URI References are URIs that may have fragments.  Oh darn, we
> don't have a
> term for a URI that has an absolutized portion that may have
> fragments.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:43 PM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: AFTF requirements list with comments,
> > pre-2003/01/28 telcon
> > (revised)
> >
> >
> >
> > David Orchard suggests:
> >
> > >> DR6. The specification must permit parts to be identified
> > by URIs or URI
> > References.  This is similar to ChrisF's comment.
> >
> > I am a little surprised.  I would have thought that what we want is:
> >
> > * The identity of each part is a URI (I.e. an absolute URI)(
> >
> > * References to parts are in the form of URI references (which are
> > resolved through the usual mechanisms to yield the absolute URI).
> >
> > David:  are you really saying that you want to allow "../a" as the
> > identity of a part?  Thanks.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> > IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 17:50:50 GMT

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