[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Discussion: payload reference for use in SOAP body. Survey of options before writing this up.
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:mattm@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:26 AM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
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 (mattm@adobe.com) 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:attachment1cid:attachment1#/ContainerElement/Invoice[0]cid:soapBodycid: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 onthe element to be referenced. cid: really doesn't seem appropriatefor these cases. Wouldn't a fragment with XPath automatically assumethe correct base URI (the current document)?
#/Envelope/Body#/Envelope/Body/Invoice[0]
Or something like that?
--PetePete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com>Senior Architect, SeeBeyondStandards & 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 MacKenzieSenior ArchitectIDBU Server SolutionsAdobe Systems Canada Inc.http://www.adobe.com/products/server/mattm@adobe.com+1 (506) 871.5409
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]