Re: Positions on issue 19

Thank you Martin. I read thru the schema pointers you sent me. And, I
couldn't find any pointers to -

"> > These elements are unqualified. Their namespace name is "" "

Yes. These elements are unqualified. It does not say that they are in the ""
namespace.

The reference [1] that I have with me says,

"if the URI reference in a default namespace declaration is empty, then
unprefixed elements in the scope of the declaration are not considered to be
in any namespace"

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#defaulting

Regards, Asir

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
To: "Asir S Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>; "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen"
<henrikn@microsoft.com>; "'Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Positions on issue 19



----- Original Message -----
From: "Asir S Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen"
<henrikn@microsoft.com>; "'Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Positions on issue 19


<SNIP>
>
> BTW, I am confused by one of Martin's statements,
>
> > These elements are unqualified. Their namespace name is ""
>
> :-( Do you have a reference?

The schema where fault is defined[1] ( a Rec-compliant version is at[2] )

Gudge

[1] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/
[2] http://marting.develop.com/xmlp/issues/issue-3/soapenvelope.xsd

>
> Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
> To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>;
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Positions on issue 19
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
> To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Cc: "Allen Brown" <allenbr@microsoft.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 1:09 AM
> Subject: Positions on issue 19
>
>
> >
> > The following is what I believe is a summary of the discussion we have
> > had on issue 19 [1] that says:
> >
> > The SOAP spec currently does not require any namespace
> > for the children elements of the Fault element; namely,
> > faultcode, faultstring, detail, and faultactor. These
> > elements are therefore in the default namespace.
>
> No. These elements are unqualified. Their namespace name is ""
>
> >
> > It continues with some discussion on the mailing list (see refs from
> > [1]). The fault structure is defined as follows (the latest Rec schema
> > for the envelope [2]) where the fault sub-elements "faultcode",
> > "faultactor", and "faultstring" are declared as unqualified local
> > elements.
> >
> >   <!-- XMLP/SOAP fault reporting structure -->
> >   <complexType name="Fault" final="extension">
> >     <sequence>
> >    <element name="faultcode" type="qname"/>
> >     <element name="faultstring" type="string"/>
> >     <element name="faultactor" type="uri-reference" minOccurs="0"/>
> >     <element name="detail" type="tns:detail" minOccurs="0"/>
> >   </sequence>
> >   </complexType>
> >
> >   <complexType name="detail">
> >     <sequence>
> >    <any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> >   </sequence>
> >     <anyAttribute/>
> >   </complexType>
> >
> > Note that there are different ways of assigning namespaces and so we
> > have to differentiate between "having a prefix" and "being qualified".
>
> Having a prefix is a lexical detail. I always think about SOAP from the
> Infoset perspective where such lexical details are abtracted away.
>
> > Howeveer, it is not entirely correct to say that these elements are in
> > the default namespace.
>
> In fact it is completely incorrect.
>
> > They are unqualified local names and as such
> > should not be qualified by a default namespace or otherwise. That is, if
> > there is a default namespace then that would have to be unset.
>
> Correct. xmlns="" is your friend...
>
> >
> > Anyway, the two positions are as far as I gather:
> >
> > 1) The SOAP fault elements should be qualified (local names?)
> > 2) The SOAP fault elements should be unqualified local names
> >
> > It is not clear whether 1) calls for global names or whether it calls
> > for qualified local names but the intent seems to be to use default
> > namespaces.
>
> Default namespace declarations are a lexical detail. Please, everyone,
let's
> just talk about elements ( and attributes ) being qualified ( have a
> namespace name which is *not* "" ) or unqualified ( have a namespace name
> which is "" ) and leave the prefixing or otherwise out of it.
>
> The schema for SOAP fault says that the children of the fault element are
> unqualified.
>
> >
> > Without taking too strong a position I wonder whether it ever makes
> > sense to use default namespaces in SOAP. Almost by definition a SOAP
> > message will contain multiple namespaces with independent schema
> > definitions and without intimate knowledge about the complete message it
> > seems likely that a default namespace would step on local elements
> > unless being very careful. This is certainly the case if using the SOAP
> > section 5 encoding. Also, intermediaries would have to be extremely
> > careful if inserting blocks into messages with default namespaces.
>
> Again, provided everyone thinks about things at the Infoset level ( and in
> terms of qualified or unqualified ) no problems need occur.
>
> >
> > If this is true then it would seem a weak argument for changing things
> > from what they are now. In fact, should we discourage the use of default
> > namespaces?
>
> Personally, I wish default namespace decls did not exist, so I'm all for
> suggesting people don't use them. I've offered to rework ALL the examples
in
> our spec...
>
> Gudge
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 13:37:50 UTC