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

Note that I am all for defining the meaning of XML Base for when it is
used with SOAP.  I would just prefer to do it after we finish SOAP 1.2
since the SOAP community seems to be doing fine without the definition
today.

We already have a very aggressive schedule and I would simply not add
more work to our already overloaded plate for SOAP 1.2.

/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: Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:21 PM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20
> 
> 
> Paul Cotton 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."
> 
> undefined ~= non-interoperable, or at best increased 
> potential for same
> which I believe calls for us to say something normative one way or the
> other.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> > 
> > /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