Possible new issue on interpretation of relative URI actors

In private discussion, Henrik and I tripped over the question of a relative
URI used as an actor.  If a block has:

     Actor="#A"

or

     Actor="A"

and if a node decides to act in that role, is there necessarily some other
absolute URI in which role it needs to act?  I had assumed "no", but I
think Henrik had assumed "yes", and he further believes that no changes to
the SOAP spec are needed, as this is implicit in the web and URI
architecture and the definition of a relative URI.

I would prefer to at least be a bit clearer in the spec, say a bit more
about what the base URI for a message might be, etc.  Presumably the base
URI must be stable through message processing, so if you no how to make #A
absolute, then #B must follow from that and be handled consistently?

All of this bears some relation to the dreaded Namespace issue (is it a
string or a real URI) but at least in this case nobody is proposing to
actually retrieve a resource in most cases.

Anyway, I recommend we open an issue.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 10:22:54 UTC