- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:42:54 -0400
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>, Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
+1! Marc Hadley wrote: > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > >> David Orchard, Jonathan Marsh have been thinking more about the use of >> XML base in SOAP and think there are two things we have to do: >> >> 1) SOAP 1.1 allows arbitrary URIs in all places where URIs are allowed. >> W3C specs must say something about XML base and relative URIs. SOAP 1.1 >> didn't do that. With the move towards infoset in SOAP 1.2 we should be >> consistent and not introduce special cases if not needed. The reason is >> that it is not possible to disallow specific attributes and therefore >> hard to enforce exceptions. That is, we recommend that XML base is fully >> supported in SOAP 1.2. >> >> 2) We should ensure that protocol bindings talk about whether they >> establish a base or not. The reason for this is that XML base is only >> one way to set a base URI, base URIs may also be set by the underlying >> protocol (XML base defines the relationship between multiple base URIs >> based on RFC 2396). HTTP already defines a base URI for all entities >> that it exchanges. If a content-location header field is present then >> that defines the base. Otherwise the base URI is defined by the >> Request-URI. >> >> Hope this makes sense - comments? >> > It does, +1 on both. > > Regards, > Marc. >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 11:46:39 UTC