RE: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20

>I think that Chris and I are proposing that SOAP should define
behaviour 
for xml:base, rather than leave it undefined. 

As I have already said, I agree with this.  I simply want to do it after
we finish SOAP 1.2.  

>A version of SOAP that normatively refers to Infoset then inherits the 
normative reference to XML Base.

This is only true if we refer to the part of the Infoset spec that
defines how the Infoset represents XML Base.  Remember there is nothing
normative itself about the Infoset specification.  It is only a set of
terms and definitions that other specs can choose to use or not use.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:orchard@pacificspirit.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:41 PM
> To: Paul Cotton; christopher ferris
> Cc: W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20
> 
> 
> I concur with this position.  XML Base ought not to, nor did it, 
> retroactively change every other XML specification.  That's 
> not my point 
> though.
> 
> Infoset does make a normative reference to XML Base, so 
> Infoset behavior 
> relative XML Base behaviour is defined.
> 
> A version of SOAP that normatively refers to Infoset then 
> inherits the 
> normative reference to XML Base.  This may be a reason to not 
> do a SOAP 
> infoset version, but that's a different issue.  It means that 
> SOAP Infoset 
> does have defined behaviour for xml:base, yet SOAP 1.2 
> non-infoset doesn't 
> have behaviour defined.  Which seems extremely bizarre to me.
> 
> I think that Chris and I are proposing that SOAP should 
> define behaviour 
> for xml:base, rather than leave it undefined.  This solves 
> any ambiguity 
> between infoset/non-infoset versions of SOAP, as well as 
> being seemingly 
> sensible for the non-infoset version of SOAP.  I'm very curious as to 
> reasons not to define behaviour for xml:base in SOAP 
> messages.  Wouldn't 
> defining this preclude some interoperability problems, which 
> seems like a 
> good thing?
> 
> As an aside, it seems to me that this dependency of 
> specifications is yet 
> another justification for the TAG.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> On Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:59 AM, Paul Cotton 
> [SMTP:pcotton@microsoft.com] wrote:
> > When the XML Base specification was completed, it was clearly stated
> > that it did NOT create a normative affect on other 
> specifications.  But
> > in affect that other specifications had to state explicitly 
> that they
> > supported XML Base.  Note the following text from [1]:
> >
> > "The behavior of xml:base attributes in applications based on
> > specifications that do not have direct or indirect 
> normative reference
> > to XML Base is undefined."
> >
> > /paulc
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
> >
> > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> > 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3
> > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> > <mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:10 PM
> > > To: Paul Cotton
> > > Cc: W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)
> > > Subject: Re: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20
> > >
> > >
> > > If SOAP is expressed as an XML syntax, then how can it
> > > be ignored? Are we saying that XMLBase cannot be used in
> > > the context of a SOAP message?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > Paul Cotton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We only have to deal with XML Base if we think SOAP 1.2
> > > should support
> > > > it.  Personally, I do not think this is mandatory for SOAP 1.2
> > > > especially since SOAP 1.1 did fine without refering to XML Base.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you open a new issue about XML Base support if
> > > you think its
> > > > support is mandatory.  It is really orthogonal to Issue 30.
> > > >
> > > > /paulc
> > > >
> > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> > > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3
> > > > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> > > > <mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com>
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:28 PM
> > > > > To: Paul Cotton
> > > > > Cc: W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)
> > > > > Subject: Re: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a nit.
> > > > >
> > > > > The href attribute should be of type "anyURI" as defined in
> > > > > XML schema datatypes.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me that we need to address any implications
> > > of XML Base
> > > > > on the value of the href attribute if it isn't expressed as an
> > > > > absolute URI.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Cotton wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Action item 2001/06/20 asked me to clarify Issue 30
> > > [1].  This issue
> > > > > > originated in my email [2] that outlined how SOAP 1.1
> > > meet the XML
> > > > > > Protocol R4xxx Requirements:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "R403
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > Requirement: Data serialized according to the XML 
> Protocol data
> > > > > > representation may contain references to data outside the
> > > > > serialization.
> > > > > > These references must be Uniform
> > > > > > Resource Identifiers (URIs).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comment: The SOAP/1.1 encoding uses the "id" and "href"
> > > > > attributes to
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > and refer to resources or sub-parts of resources. The
> > > > > format of the href
> > > > > > attribute is of type "uri-reference" as defined by XML
> > > > > schema. The "id"
> > > > > > attribute is of type "ID" as defined by XML/1.0. 
> There are no
> > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > on the value of a URI used as value in a href attribute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Judgement: SOAP/1.1 covers this requirement 
> although it is not
> > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > stated that URIs can in fact point to anything."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Issue 30 Clarification:
> > > > > > In my opinion, the only point that we want to clarify (and
> > > > > it is only a
> > > > > > clarification) is that a consequence of using URIs is
> > > that they can
> > > > > > point to anything and not only within the same document (of
> > > > > the style
> > > > > > #foo). Some implementers may be surprised that the
> > > value of the href
> > > > > > attribute could be something like
> > > > > "http://www.foo.com/some.doc" if we do
> > > > > > not point this out in a clarification. In addition we
> > > might want to
> > > > > > indicate that they can point to an attachment to the SOAP
> > > > > message [3].
> > > > > > In both of the latter cases we want to be sure to indicate
> > > > > that these
> > > > > > URI's point outside of the current SOAP message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x30
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0045.html
> > > > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> > > > > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3
> > > > > > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> > > > > > <mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com>
> > > > >
> > > 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 19:27:36 UTC