Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base

+1

Doug Davis wrote:

> I like that wording much better.
> -Dug
> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com> on 10/08/2001 09:00:38 AM
> 
> To:   "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:   <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Subject:  Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that David is trying to allow for the case where a header or body
> element wishes to disallow xml:base.
> 
> I would reword the first paragraphs as follows ( from an Infoset
> perspective );
> 
> This version of the SOAP specification supports the W3C XML Base
> Recommendation. An xml:base attribute information item MAY appear on any of
> the element information items defined in this specification.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Gudge
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
> To: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>
> Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 7:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base
> 
> 
> 
>>David,
>>  In the 1st paragraph you have:
>>"This version of the SOAP specification supports the W3C XML Base
>>Recommendation. The xml:base attribute MAY appear on the
>>SOAP-ENV:Envelope, SOAP-ENV:Body, SOAP-ENV:Header, or
>>SOAP-ENV:Fault elements.
>>
>>I'm reading the intent of this as XMLBase can be used anywhere.
>>If so, why do we need to call out those XML element directly,
>>why can't just we just stop after the 1st sentence.  Having
>>the 2nd one could lead people to believe that those are the only
>>elements that xml:base can appear in the entire XML document.
>>
>>-Dug
>>
>>David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>@w3.org on 10/05/2001 08:16:42 PM
>>
>>Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
>>
>>
>>To:   xml-dist-app@w3.org
>>cc:
>>Subject:  Proposed positive text for XML Base
>>
>>
>>
>>I took Noah's excellent wording[1] and semantically NOTed it. My attempt
>>follows. Please note that this wording defines that relative URI's ARE
>>interpreted according to xml:base, therefore implementations must support
>>xml:base. It seems to me that an application that doesn't support
>>
> xml:base
> 
>>but supports relative URIs is an undefined state.
>>
>>BASE URI's and Relative URI Resolution
>>--------------------------------------
>>"This version of the SOAP specification supports the W3C XML Base
>>Recommendation. The xml:base attribute MAY appear on the
>>
> SOAP-ENV:Envelope,
> 
>>SOAP-ENV:Body, SOAP-ENV:Header, or SOAP-ENV:Fault elements.
>>
>>The XML Base specification provides a standard Base URI for the contents
>>
> of
> 
>>the SOAP-ENV:Body or other header entries. Specifications for particular
>>applications of SOAP, as well as specifications for transport bindings,
>>header entries and/or body entries MAY define the interpretation of
>>relative URI's within such body or entries additionally. In the absence
>>
> of
> 
>>such additional specifications, the resolution of relative URI's
>>
> appearing
> 
>>within the contents of a body or other header entry is defined by XML
>>
> Base.
> 
>>Relative URI's MAY be used as values for attributes or elements (such as
>>SOAP-ENV:Actor, SOAP-ENV:EncodingStyle) defined by this specification; if
>>such values are used, their resolution to absolute URI's is defined
>>according to the XML Base Recommendation.
>>
>>Namespace declarations for the namespaces used in this specification
>>
> (such
> 
>>as http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope) MUST be provided as absolute
>>URI's. Element or attribute names qualified with relative URI namespaces
>>are not recognized as matching the absolute names mandated by this
>>specification."
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Dave Orchard
>>
>>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Aug/0268.html
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 12:20:29 UTC