Lists Home |
Date Index |
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Michael Kay wrote:
>> The XQuery specification, incidentally, defines a mapping of error
>> QNames to
>> error URIs. It's different from this one, of course.
> The error URIs in the XQuery spec look like this:
Yeah, WSDL 2.0 does something similar defining a fragment notation (in
section C.2). I'm sure the draft will get mentioned on the wsdl public
comment list. I think I've already commented publically enough for them. :)
> Something similar has been tried before in XML digital signatures and
I don't know about RDF, but I don't think DSIG does it this way. They
make it easy, basing all identifiers within their namespace (which ends
with a "#" :). Can you point to what you mean for dsig?
> I agree with most of your concerns about the details of the proposed
> qname URN scheme (IRIs vs. URIs, percent encoding, etc.) but at a
> fundamental level I think the proposed scheme is better than what XQuery
> is proposing. I would suggest that XQuery adopt the new qname URN scheme
> rather than using http URIs to identify error codes. In fact, I'll cc
> this to the XQuery working group to register it as a formal comment.
Well, there's a reason why it's a draft. :) We appreciate the feedback.
And, thanks for the good words. It'd be nice to do this all the same
way. WS-Addressing could also leverage this, depending on what we
decide to do with some WSDL issues.
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html