- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:42:41 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
- CC: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek, I agree that next and none wouldn't be dereferencable, but that doesn't preclude use of relative URI actor values that are relative to the base URI... Cheers, Chris Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Huh, well, Chris, as I see it, nothing in the text suggests that > the URI can be referenced and what should be found there, and the > text gives two concrete URIs, .../next and .../none, that I can't > even imagine why anybody would want to dereference them. > Certainly, an extension could use actor URIs for example for > targetting, but then this would be well specified in the > extension. IMHO SOAP itself defines actors as "not to be > dereferenced". > I see namespace URIs, encodingStyle URIs and actor URIs as > modeled exactly in the same way - as identifiers that "should > have the characteristics of uniqueness and persistence" (from > [1]). Nothing more. 8-) > > Jacek Kopecky > > Idoox > http://www.idoox.com/ > > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Christopher Ferris wrote: > > > Jacek, > > > > I disagree that the URI value of an actor attribute > > cannot be dereferenced. Nothing in the text suggests > > that it can't be used in this matter. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > Jacek Kopecky wrote: > > > > > Noah, > > > I agree that as SOAP is an XML format it has URIs all over it. > > > But the only ones that something can reasonably attempt to > > > resolve are the hrefs and other application-dependent URIs. > > > Namespace URIs are not to be resolved by definition [1]. > > > Actor URIs are not to be resolved by definition [2]. > > > EncodingStyle URIs are not to be resolved by definition [3]. > > > The only URIs that are designed to be resolved are hrefs and > > > maybe some application-defined ones. Well, we cannot rule the > > > latter. Hrefs are a matter of the Encoding and I don't see a > > > reason for moving it to the core. > > > > > > An href URI can or cannot be referenced when it's needed. > > > I think the options we to solve this situation have are: > > > 1) SOAP Encoding does not guarantee href URIs to be > > > dereferencable unless they are of the form "#<id>". A transport > > > binding, an extension or an application MAY add other guarantees. > > > 2) SOAP Encoding href URIs are always dereferencable, it is the > > > responsibility of the sender to make sure the URIs will be > > > dereferencable, possibly by means of a transport binding, an > > > extension or the application. In case of a failure when > > > dereferencing an href URI the processor will generate a > > > SOAP-ENC:UnreachableReference fault. (We might want to specify how > > > to add the URI that was unreachable to the detail in the generated > > > Fault.) > > > > > > I don't have preference towards any of the presented two > > > options. > > > > > > If I forgot about some URIs that can be present in the message, > > > please mention them. 8-) > > > > > > Jacek Kopecky > > > > > > Idoox > > > http://www.idoox.com/ > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#dt-NSName > > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapactor > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapencattr > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: > > > > > > > Jacek Kopecky writes: > > > > > > > > >> AFAIK, SOAP+attachments uses this Encoding mechanism > > > > and > > > > >> The core SOAP does not have any referencing > > > > >> mechanism for it doesn't need one. It's the > > > > >> data that may need references, thus > > > > >>it's the encodings that may want to specify > > > > >> referencing. > > > > > > > > I see it a bit differently. S+A and Dime are meant to work with unencoded > > > > body and header entries as well as encoded ones. The very fact that we > > > > are "Web" services and using XML formats implies that message content can > > > > include URIs, regardless of how they are represented lexically, what > > > > encoding is used, whether they are set off separately in attributes or > > > > elements or in running text content, etc. > > > > > > > > In all these cases, the question arises: "are there any rules about which > > > > URI's will successfully resolve at any given node and at any given point > > > > in time." For SOAP in general, the answer must be "no", except insofar as > > > > we establish URI's for the envelope itself. If I put the URI > > > > http://www.ibm.com/noahsxray.jpg into a SOAP message, there should be no > > > > conformance requirement on SOAP processors that anything be available at > > > > that URI. > > > > > > > > By contrast, if I'm using SOAP + Attachements, and if I use a content ID > > > > that in fact is properly declared in the MIME envelope, then indeed the > > > > reference MUST resolve. This is true regardless of whether I am using > > > > encodings or not. In fact, it's true regardless of whether the URI > > > > reference appears explicitly in the envelope or is just implied by its > > > > contents. > > > > > > > > I am recommending that we make clear that core SOAP has no such > > > > conformance requirement, but that features such as S+A or DIME can indeed > > > > indicate URI's which MUST successfully resolve. I have recommended that > > > > we open an issue to consider this question. Thank you. > > > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments#SOAPReferenceToAttachements > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > > > > Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > > > > One Rogers Street > > > > Cambridge, MA 02142 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 13:46:21 UTC