[Axis2] XML + Namespaces + Base [Re: [Axis2] [Update] XMLConformace Testing Report.

[Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu>]

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>"jayachandra" <ja...@gmail.com> writes:
>  
>
>>-->A default namespace for 'xml' prefix is supposed to be in
>>the scopeof every XML element. I did a work around on my machine
>>as todeclaring this namespace inside the OMElementImpl constructor
>>methodsitself, before running the tests.
>>    
>>
>
>??? I have no idea what you're saying .. XML 1.0 has no concept
>of namespaces! XML 1.0 *+* Namespaces does but not the base XML
>spec. 
>  
>
XML 1.0 makes "xml*" names reserved and XML Namespaces spec defines 
special xmlns* processing and additionally requires that namespace 
prefix xml is always bound to special namespace.

>  
>
>>-->The 'baseURI' property support is not provided by OM 
>>insideOMElement. If we can keep track of this one thing in OM 
>>it can help usreduce the number of parsed tests that fail at 
>>comparison phase by agood number (a few fifties).
>>    
>>
>
>Hmmm. I am not certain but it seems to me that XML Base was
>a thing that built on namespaces? Alek you must know the 
>definitive answer (or I guess I could check but .. ;-)).
>  
>
it is additional specification http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
that is used when resolving relative links in XML documents
and i do not think it is required in pure XML + Namespaces
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
but nonetheless is popular and useful in some situations
including SOAP 1.2:
defined by this specification (see "SOAP uses XML Base [XML Base] for 
determining a base URI for relative URI references used as values in 
information items6. Use of URIs in SOAP)."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/

so in conclusion OM needs to support: XML 1.0 + Namespaces + XML Base
to support fully SOAP 1.2 though it is rarely used IMHO ...

>
>>And Sanjiva, just to be extra cautious that I don't give
>>out wrongsignals :-)... so far I tested OM against *only*
>>valid XMLs of 1.0version that should be parsed and serialized 
>>using any infosetimplementation. We haven't tested OM against
>>how well it can _reject_invalid and ill-formed XMLs. They
>>actually form the larger fraction ofthe XMLsuite about 1800 :-(
>>    
>>
>
>Ah ok - yes we do care about failing on the bad ones!
>  
>
those tests can be done independent of OM. i would not worry too much 
about that as StAX *is* API and you can swap in any parser you need with 
different speed/size/conformance trade-offs.

alek

-- 
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay

Re: [Axis2] XML + Namespaces + Base [Re: [Axis2] [Update] XMLConformace Testing Report.

[Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>]

Aleksander Slominski wrote:

> XML 1.0 makes "xml*" names reserved and XML Namespaces spec defines 
> special xmlns* processing and additionally requires that namespace 
> prefix xml is always bound to special namespace.

Yes I know .. but note that its the XML Namespaces spec that defines a 
special
prefix for xmlns. (No one defines a special prefix for "xml"!). So, if 
you're doing
XML 1.0 tests, there is no concept of a prefix - all you have is that 
names starting
with the characters [xX][mM][lL] are reservered.

> it is additional specification http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
> that is used when resolving relative links in XML documents
> and i do not think it is required in pure XML + Namespaces
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/

Right, and here we're talking about XML 1.0 tests; which means XML Base
doesn't come into consideration either.

> but nonetheless is popular and useful in some situations
> including SOAP 1.2:
> defined by this specification (see "SOAP uses XML Base [XML Base] for 
> determining a base URI for relative URI references used as values in 
> information items6. Use of URIs in SOAP)."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/


Yep.

> so in conclusion OM needs to support: XML 1.0 + Namespaces + XML Base
> to support fully SOAP 1.2 though it is rarely used IMHO ...


OM needs to support the subset of XML 1.0 as used in SOAP + XML namespaces
+ XML Base. Other stuff is optional and is only necessary if OM is used 
for more
general XML processing; which is not our primary concern.

To be clear, I'm not against someone extending OM to have full XML 1.0 
support,
but IFF it has absolutely no performance or negative API impact on us.

Sanjiva.