Re: Conflict between empty role value and SOAP 1.2's use of xml:base

+1.  I'm not an XML Base expert, but that sounds like a reasonable 
accomodation.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Sent by: xmlp-comments-request@w3.org
07/02/2002 11:13 AM

 
        To:     <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
        cc:     "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, 
(bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Conflict between empty role value and SOAP 1.2's use of xml:base




From [1] it says:

"Omitting the SOAP role attribute information item is equivalent to
supplying that attribute with a value of
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver". An
empty value for this attribute is equivalent to omitting the attribute
completely, i.e. targeting the SOAP header block at an ultimate SOAP
receiver."

However, "" is a value relative URI and so this statement conflicts with
our use of xml:base [2] and our use of relative URIs:

"URIs used as values in information items identified by the
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope" and
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding" XML namespaces can be either
relative or absolute."

Proposed resolution: Remove the last sentence in the above paragraph so
that it reads:

"Omitting the SOAP role attribute information item is equivalent to
supplying that attribute with a value of
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver"."

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soaprole
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#useofuris

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 15:48:38 UTC