CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 11:02:17 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:28:47 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 11:02:16 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98cddd402d73860e
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: MISS
set-cookie: __cf_bm=zEpeobDnef5akgQlEd6ZZLG.ZaIWv4Qsiu67tfuA1Vk-1760180537-1.0.1.1-v.6M.5p.EYzwRtCbi5dvmxwfDaWdu9SofdHXiTS36qAsE.MXdGbYeRZfQ5CpbbP84luoaClNTWbVBWWjg_wcoBL7RvyyZ6J.bm90f1pM5Ck; path=/; expires=Sat, 11-Oct-25 11:32:17 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98cddd402d73860e-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
RE: Rationalize URI vs. IRI (Core, clarification) from Jonathan Marsh on 2005-04-12 (public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org from April 2005)
RE: Rationalize URI vs. IRI (Core, clarification)
- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:53:17 -0700
- To: <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507280CED@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Corresponding changes to the SOAP Binding spec: - Last sentence before 1.1: 'Line (010) specifies an action URI identifying expected semantics.' (Note also case correction.) - Section 2.1: 'The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Feature is named using the following URI: ...' - Section 3.1: 'The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Module is identified using the following URI: ...' - Section 4.1: 'The SOAP 1.1 Addressing 1.0 Extension is identified using the following URI: ...' > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws- > addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:05 AM > To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > Subject: Rationalize URI vs. IRI (Core, clarification) > > > The mixed use of the acronyms URI and IRI is a bit confusing. > Sometimes > the draft uses IRI, and sometimes it uses URI. However, simply using > IRI throughout has problems too. We suggest as a principle for when > to > use IRI vs. URI that when specific instances of IRIs can be identified > as URIs by inspection (e.g. the anonymous URI), and we should call > them > URIs to make it clear they can be used in any context where a URI is > allowed. The types of the properties are rightly described as IRIs, > since the range of values is greater than allowed by URIs. Following > this principle would result in the following changes: > > - Last sentence before 1.1: 'Line (010) specifies an action URI > identifying expected semantics.' (Note also case correction.) > > - Last sentence in section 2.2: 'The following shows an example > endpoint > reference. This element references the endpoint at the URI > "https://example.com/www.fabrikam/acct".' (Note also extra "the" > removed.) > > - Section 3 [relationship]: 'The message identifier IRI may refer to a > specific message, or be the following well-known URI that means > "unspecified message": > "https://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/id/unspecified".' > > - Table 3-1 heading 'URI'. > > - Section 3 [relationship]: 'A reply message MUST contain a > [relationship] property consisting of the predefined reply URI and the > message id property of the request message.' > > - Section 3 [relationship]: 'WS-Addressing defines the following > well-known URI for use by endpoints that cannot have a stable, > resolvable IRI: > "https://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/role/anonymous".' > > - Section 3.1 4th bullet: '[relationship]: a new pair of IRIs is added > to this value as follows; the relationship type is the predefined > reply > URI "https://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply" ...' >
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 18:53:43 UTC