Title: Message
I like
the idea that we try to stick with one content identifcation scheme but it
should IMO be something
defined according to:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xmlns/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xpointer/
I am not
certain that inventing special literals will keep us within the xptr-framework.
Maybe we
should go with a scheme-based approach and follow
xptr-xpointer.
The XPointer xpointer() scheme is intended to be
used with the XPointer Framework [XPtrFrame] to provide a high level of
functionality for addressing portions of XML documents. It is based on XPath
[XPath], and adds the ability to address strings,
points, and ranges in accordance with definitions provided in DOM 2:
Range.
The CID schema could always be
used in combination with the xpointer "fragment" part of the URI-Reference as
far as I can tell.
So we would have things
like
CID:hex-escaped-cid-value-minus-brackets#xpointer(/envelope/body)
[correct for namespace qualification as needed]
That is, I think the existing
frameworks and URI schemes have more than enough expressive power to point
to the right stuff.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew
MacKenzie [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004
11:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re:
[ebxml-msg] Discussion: payload reference for use in SOAP body. Survey of
options before writing this up.
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
