LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  June 2004

ZNG June 2004

Subject:

Re: ZeeRex Records (also Attn Theo)

From:

Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:54:32 +0100

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (89 lines)

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Matthew J. Dovey wrote:

> > DDTT.
> > If you're stuck behind such a monster, then use either string
> > packing or expect that -your client- is going to have such
> > issues. That has nothing to do with the -server- which can
> > still be legitimately expected to put namespace definitions
> > where we want it to.
[...]


> No - you add a signature digest in the SOAP header but you don't change
> the XML tree (but possibly the serialized XML) of the SOAP:body - that
> way any client can still understand the response but a WS-Security aware
> will be able to check the signature. However part of this process is to
> convert the message part you are signing to (exclusive) canonical form.

> And if you are using something like XOP (optimised binary transmission
> of XML), something like this may indeed be happing. But such a thing

Optimised Binary Transmission of XML ... You mean, kinda like, BER?
*hides*


> This kind of hack has never worked (properly) - in XML you have
> namespaces, Entities and other such references which will break this
> kind of hack - and even when this kind of hack does work then it is
> definitely regarded as *bad* practice (far worse than putting entities
> in the root elements, which is both common practice and canonical form).

I agree that it's a hack, but I reference the other 'hack' clients which
the protocol -actively- supports by including such things as stylesheet,
echoedRequest, nextRecordPosition etcetc.


...
 <SOAP:Body wsu:Id="myBody">
    <SRW:searchRetrieveResponse xmlns:SRW="http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/"
xmlns:DIAG="http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/diagnostics/">
...

Why are SRW and DIAG defined -here- not on the SOAP:Envelope element?
Surely Envelope is the top level for this XML?

If sRR can have the namespaces for SRW and DIAG, why can't this be applied
to the recordData as well?  We legitimately have XML documents included
inside an XML document, in just the same way that searchRetrieveResponse
is included inside the SOAP wrapper.

> We could take the DDTT approach - but do we want to position SRW in a
> way that means SRW servers have trouble supporting WS-Security; SRW
> servers wo'n't work behind WebService firewalls; accepted XML bad
> practice is SRW good practice?

Wait wait, we're not talking about SRW servers, we're talking about
clients. An SRW server has no trouble supporting WS-Security. They will
work behind firewalls.
It's the stupid clients that extract records as text rather than as XML
nodes which will have the problem. But given that SRU actively supports
Terminally Braindead clients, let alone just stupid ones, it can easily
support this as well.

The issue is:

Should SRW recommend (note it would only ever be a recommendation) that
servers respond with the namespace mapping for embedded records such that
they're on the record nodes, rather than the protocol nodes.

It doesn't say that they MUST be ONLY there. It doesn't say that routers
then can't move them, it says that SRW recommends that they're there
UNLESS there's other reasons (such as the above) why they can't be.
EchoedFooRequest isn't mandatory. You can't build a stupid client and
expect it to work with everything, BUT we can certainly make
recommendations that will help such interoperability.

And yes, DDTT definitely applies to text clients, xslt clients and so
forth.  But one of the notions we've always held was that clients
should be easy to write.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager