- From: Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:27:17 +0200
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Dear all, I currently have an action item: 2002/09/11: Herve Draft clarifying sentence or two for AF spec that relative URIs are allowed by EOB Friday. Comments are due Monday noon PT. Silence is assent. Here is some proposal for fulfilling this action item. Comments are welcomed. Hervé. -------------------- Change 5th paragraph of 4. Compound SOAP Structure Model: <current> Each part is identified by a URI that can be used to reference it from other parts. The URI identifying a part can be of any URI scheme; the particular assignment of URIs to parts in the message MUST be specified by each SOAP binding implementing this feature. It is RECOMMENDED that only IANA registered URI schemes be used. </current> <proposal> Each part is identified by a URI reference that can be used to reference it from other parts. The URI reference identifying a part can be of any URI scheme. It can be an absolute or a relative URI. The particular assignement of URI references to parts in the message MUST be specified by each SOAP binding implementing this feature. In addition, if a SOAP binding allows the use of relative URIs, it MUST specify how the base URI is established. It is RECOMMENDED that only IANA registered URI schemes be used. </proposal> I don't think we should change the definition of a Secondary Part which is currently (i.e. keep URI, and do not replace it by URI reference): <current> Secondary Part A document or entity related to the primary SOAP message part in some manner. A secondary part is a resource in the sense that it has identity and is identified by a URI. The representation of the resource can be of any type and size. Secondary parts are informally referred to as attachments. </current>
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 08:27:34 UTC