Re: [ebxml-msg] Discussion: payload reference for use in SOAP body.Survey of options before writing this up.

[Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com>]

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: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 <pete@seebeyond.com>
> 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/
mattm@adobe.com
+1 (506) 871.5409