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.
