W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:27:22 -0500
Message-ID: <3C459BDA.8010107@sun.com>
To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
CC: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, XML dist app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>

MUST NOT be required is different than saying MUST NOT
be used. IMO, we have tghe restriction on "required"
on the part of a recipient of a message, but we do not,
nor IMO can we preclude the receiving SOAP node from
applying whatever processing floats their boat.

A receiver *could* leverage the knowledge that the
attributes named 'id' and 'idref' are implicitly typed
as XML1.0 ID and IDREF, construct a DTD that it used
to process the message.



Martin Gudgin wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
> To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
> Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>; "XML dist app"
> <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding
>>Only if one wanted to leverage the internal subset,
>>other than that, you could treat them in the same
>>manner as href and id.
> Sorry, this may be the context I'm missing. Are we saying that we will use
> attributes with local names of ID and IDREF rather than attributes with type
> of ID and IDREF? If the former then we don't need DTD/schema processing but
> at the same time I guess I'm not entirely sure what the difference is
> between ID/IDREF and id/href. If the latter then surely we need DTD/schema
> processing to determine which attributes are of type ID/IDREF
>>It would certainly be much
>>more convenient for implementations that did choose
>>to leverage DTD processing.
> This leads me to think we're talking about type rather than local name
>>Given that we're talking
>>about encoding, which leverages XML Schema types, it
>>is pretty clear to me that we're also imposing schema
>>processing anyway, no?
> My understanding is that our spec specifically states that schema processing
> MUST NOT be required.
> Gudge
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 10:28:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:45 UTC