W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2004

Re: What does http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP identify?

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:48:47 -0500
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040116074847.G25253@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi Stuart,

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:48:31AM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> FWIW I'll offer my personal perspective.

Thanks, I think that's useful at this point.

> In order to answer your question you have to accept the premise that the
> XMLP-WG has changed which resource is referenced by the URI. That may be
> open to question, but I don't think you can take it as a given - an
> personally I don't see that they have.

Good point.  I might have been clearer if I described the issue as one
of disagreement between a URI publisher, and the world at large, about
what a URI identifies; that until recently, the representations
returned from that URI were consistent with the different identity
interpretations of "both" parties.

> IMO, the clarification from the XMLP-WG is entirely consistent with URI
> policy for TR page URIs as articulated in section 1 of the W3C pubrules [1]
> (I encountered these working on the metaDataInUri-31 draft finding - looking
> for an example of an articulation of URI assignment policy).

Yes, I agree.  But I don't think the W3C/XMLP did what they could have
to make this policy clear.  Specifically, prior to a few weeks ago when
the redirect to SOAP 1.2 occurred, the content of the SOAP 1.1 spec was
returned directly in a response with only the Content-Location header
set to point to the /TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508 (IIRC).  IMO, what would
have better supported the policy would have been a transient redirect
from /TR/SOAP.  That way, the second URI would have been made visible to
agents and humans (i.e. show up in the browser URI bar).

> I'd be a little troubled by specifications making latest version references
> rather than specific version references (I don't know whether the former is
> a widespread practice), just as I'd be a little wary of writing a blank
> cheque - or writing a cheque in pencil. 

Sure.  But when basically the whole world decides that it isn't a
latest version reference, then IMO, it isn't.

FWIW, if you consult the Google Oracle for backlinks ...


You'll see that most of those pages use the URI to refer to SOAP 1.1,
rather than "SOAP in general".

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 07:53:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:03 UTC