Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding

That's fine by me. Just wanted to make sure I understood where we were
going.

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>; "Marc Hadley"
<marc.hadley@sun.com>; "XML dist app" <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>;
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding


> Gudge,
>  as I expressed before it is my opinion that you don't require
> XML Schema processing if you just specify that every application
> built according to the Encoding spec will treat the attributes
> with local names id and idref (or whatever, just 'ref' will be
> proposed in the rewrite for IDREF) as typed ID and IDREF. You
> see, the DTD/Schema equivalent may be built in and therefore no
> actual DTD/Schema processing is required.
>  It is a problem of the current XML libraries that they require
> DTD/Schema to be able to assign types to attributes and act
> accordingly, but this does not matter for the function of the
> application (it's just the minor inconvenience of being unable to
> call getElementByID() or something).
>  Best regards,
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, 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 Friday, 18 January 2002 11:52:34 UTC