- From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:00:27 -0800
- To: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jacek Kopecky <jacek" <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: "xml-dist-app" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Can we make such normative statements universally about URI reference processing or should processing depend on the semantics of the message? I think the latter. -----Original Message----- From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:06 AM To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek Cc: xml-dist-app Subject: Re: issue 168 proposal: xsi:type of external references in Encoding As I've suggested before, I think there are issues relating to external references that go beyond the encodings, and I think our approach has to be consistent across the cases. If I send you a document that uses encoding and has an href to some other URL, what are my obligations in following that link? It has very bad performance and security implications if you even imply that a conforming implementation MUST try to open a random URL that happens to show up in the href of a document. This also relates to our handling of SOAP+Attachments and DIME, which I think we've delayed for now. So, we need to indicate in the encodings, what is the result if there is an href you choose not to follow or can't follow? Is it that a fault should be generated? Is it the same fault as if an href in the form of a fragment referencing the envelope itself fails? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 15:01:24 UTC