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

I agree with this summary. So +1 for closing this with no action.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
> Sent: 03 September 2002 03:04
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Marc Hadley; Nilo Mitra; Noah 
> Mendelson; Martin Gudgin
> Cc: W3C Public Archive
> Subject: RE: Editorial issue 264: Part 0 - section 6 - URIs 
> 
> 
> 
> Adding Gudge :(
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> >Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:01
> >To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; 'Marc Hadley'; 'Nilo Mitra'; 'Noah 
> >Mendelson'
> >Cc: 'W3C Public Archive'
> >Subject: Editorial issue 264: Part 0 - section 6 - URIs 
> >
> >
> >
> >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 05:26:33 UTC