RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@phalanxsys.com] 
> Sent: 10 February 2003 12:45
> To: Martin Gudgin; 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; 'David Fallside'; 
> xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries
> 
> 
> (1) What happens with default properties of headers, e.g., 
> WS-Security "Password" element carries a "Type" attribute 
> with a default value of "wss:PasswordText."  Can a default 
> value be inserted OR omitted depending on case?

For WS-Security these are schema default values and hence only exist
after schema processing. I would argue that you can't add or remove
these values at intermediaries.

> (2) Must preservation in terms of values be absolute, e.g., 
> can MU="1" be represented as MU="true"

Preservation of values is at the Infoset ( rather than PSVI ) level. So
for attributes [normalized value] must be preserved.

> (3) Must the encoding attribute of the xml declaration (if 
> any) be preserved, if over HTTP.

Good question, the spec implies yes, but I don't think it's actually
necessary. Perhaps the language should be relaxed somewhat ( perhaps by
adding another exception ).

Gudge

> 
> -Matt Long
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 2:27 PM
> > To: mlong@phalanxsys.com; Sanjiva Weerawarana; David Fallside;
> xml-dist-
> > app@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, you need to preserve the Infoset properties of the stuff that's
> there
> > ( modulo the exceptions listed ).
> > If you insert new stuff you can use whatever prefixes you like.
> > 
> > Gudge
> > 
> > 	-----Original Message-----
> > 	From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@phalanxsys.com]
> > 	Sent: Sat 08/02/2003 12:28
> > 	To: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; Martin Gudgin; 'David 
> Fallside'; xml- 
> > dist-app@w3.org
> > 	Cc:
> > 	Subject: RE: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 	I assume that 'preserve' and 'reuse' are distinct, i.e., that an
> > 	intermediary is not required to 'reuse' prefixes for inserted 
> > headers.
> > 
> > 
> > 	-Matt Long
> > 
> > 
> > 	>
> > 	> >
> > 	> > Section 2.7.4[1] states
> > 	> >
> > 	> > "All XML infoset properties of a message MUST be preserved
> with
> > the
> > 	> > following exceptions"
> > 	> >
> > 	> > Given that ns prefixes are properties of element 
> information 
> > items (
> > 	for
> > 	> > better or worse ), they have to be preserved.
> > 	> >
> > 	> > Gudge
> > 	> >
> > 	> > [1]
> > 	> >
> > 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-soap12-part1-
> > 20021219/#soapinterminfoset
> > 	> >
> > 	> > > -----Original Message-----
> > 	> > > From: David Fallside [mailto:fallside@us.ibm.com]
> > 	> > > Sent: 07 February 2003 17:56
> > 	> > > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > 	> > > Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> > 	> > > Subject: treatment of ns prefixes by intermediaries
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > > This question came up during an implementer's interop test
> > 	> > > session: Is an intermediary obliged to preserve namespace
> > 	> > > prefixes? The spec says nothing explicitly (that we could
> > 	> > > find) but appears to implicitly oblige intermediaries to
> > 	> > > preserve them. What did the WG intend?
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > > ............................................
> > 	> > > David C. Fallside, IBM
> > 	> > > Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
> > 	> > > Int  Ph: 544.9665
> > 	> > > fallside@us.ibm.com
> > 	> > >
> > 	> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 16:21:41 UTC