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

+1, OK, but I think we owe Martin a careful and polite reply, rather than 
a "no change".  He raised the issue with some care and goes into some 
detail, and I worry that we will antagonize our reviewers if they try to 
tell us where they find the spec unclear, and we say "sure it's clear, 
trust us, we know it well."   Maybe the answer, as he also suggests, would 
be a bit of clarification in the primer?  Not sure.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
09/03/2002 05:26 AM

 
        To:     "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" 
<moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Nilo Mitra" 
<EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>
        Subject:        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 19:15:27 UTC