Pete,
Yes, soapBody would be a special literal. If we use SOAP:Envelope relative XPath, we lose an interesting side effect of being able to specify xpath on ANY payload, not just the SOAP one. I don't know if we want that side effect.
Personally, I want to go toward one content identification syntax. Even if we go toward:
xpath://#/foo[0]
cid://attachment1
...that is cool to me as well. It has a consistent theme.
-Matt
On May 20, 2004, at 3:10 PM, Pete Wenzel wrote:
Thus spoke Matthew MacKenzie () on Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:54:42PM -0300:
So, something like the following may be a good idea..:
cid:<soapBody | attachmentID>[#XPath]
Producing the following valid URIs...
cid:attachment1
cid:attachment1#/ContainerElement/Invoice[0]
cid:soapBody
cid:soapBody#/Invoice[0]
The last 2 assume that we assign special meaning to the literal
"soapBody", right? Otherwise we'd have to require an ID attribute on
the element to be referenced. cid: really doesn't seem appropriate
for these cases. Wouldn't a fragment with XPath automatically assume
the correct base URI (the current document)?
#/Envelope/Body
#/Envelope/Body/Invoice[0]
Or something like that?
--Pete
Pete Wenzel <>
Senior Architect, SeeBeyond
Standards & Product Strategy
+1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific)
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/members/leave_workgroup.php.
___________________________
Matthew MacKenzie
Senior Architect
IDBU Server Solutions
Adobe Systems Canada Inc.
http://www.adobe.com/products/server/
+1 (506) 871.5409
