W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

RE: NEW ISSUE: Replace QName's with anyURI

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:37:07 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0BF3BEA8@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I'm somewhat against changing the status quo.  QNames do provide a
convenient short-hand instead of URIs.  In the cases that you've listed,
I don't think there is an security vulnerability or ambiguity that is
introduced by the use of QNames.  

I think it is significantly easier to use the Service QName rather the
Service URI, especially since WSDL 1.1 doesn't define a Qname to URI


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rich Salz
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:06 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: NEW ISSUE: Replace QName's with anyURI
> Description: There are several places where we use QName's for
> values (e.g., RelatesTo/@RelationshipType) and for content (e.g.,
> ServiceName).  Should we replace those with URI's?
> Justification:  Everyone else is doing it. :)  The TAG finding can be
> interpreted as encouraging it.
> Target: all specs
> Proposal: Convert or consider providing rationale.
> 	/r$
> --
> Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology
> XS40 XML Security Gateway
> XML Security Overview
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 18:37:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:21 UTC