Re: Editorial issue 264: Part 0 - section 6 - URIs

+1 on no action

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> The issue calls for indicating that information items carrying URIs as
> values should be specified in section as having a type of xsd:anyURI.
> After looking through the SOAP envelope defined EIs that carry URIs, all
> have mention of being of type xsd:anyURI in section 5. It would
> therefore seem as replication to add it in section 6 as well.
> 
> Schemas' definition of anyURI [2] explicitly calls out the relationship
> between IRIs, URIs, and anyURI:
> 
> "The mapping from anyURI values to URIs is as defined in Section 5.4
> Locator Attribute of [XML Linking Language] (see also Section 8
> Character Encoding in URI References of [Character Model]). This means
> that a wide range of internationalized resource identifiers can be
> specified when an anyURI is called for, and still be understood as URIs
> per [RFC 2396], as amended by [RFC 2732], where appropriate to identify
> resources."
> 
> IMO, we have nothing to add regarding this issue as it is a) outside the
> scope of SOAP and b) addressed by the schema spec already.
> 
> I don't think we have anything to say about how URIs can be carried
> outside the SOAP Envelope. For example, how the request-URI is encoded
> in an HTTP request is HTTP's problem and not ours. I do not support that
> SOAP should see it as a requirement to dictate rules on SMTP, HTTP, etc.
> 
> In summary, I think we can close this issue with no action.
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x264
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI
> 

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 04:28:23 UTC