RFC7351: A Media Type for XML Patch Operations
Download in PDF format Download in text format
Related keywords:
(media type)
(XML Patch Operations)
Independent Submission E. Wilde
Request for Comments: 7351 UC Berkeley
Category: Informational August 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721
A Media Type for XML Patch Operations
Abstract
The XML patch document format defines an XML document structure for
expressing a sequence of patch operations to be applied to an XML
document. The XML patch document format builds on the foundations
defined in RFC 5261. This specification also provides the media type
registration "application/xml-patch+xml", to allow the use of XML
patch documents in, for example, HTTP conversations.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7351.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Wilde Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Patch Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Patch Document Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Patch Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Implementation Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.1. Matching Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.2. Patching Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. ABNF for RFC 5261 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) [RFC7303] is a common format for
the exchange and storage of structured data. HTTP PATCH [RFC5789]
extends HTTP [RFC7231] with a method to perform partial modifications
to resources. HTTP PATCH requires that patch documents be sent along
with the request, and it is therefore useful for there to be
standardized patch document formats (identified by media types) for
popular media types.
The XML patch media type "application/xml-patch+xml" is an XML
document structure for expressing a sequence of operations to apply
to a target XML document, suitable for use with the HTTP PATCH
method. Servers can freely choose which patch formats they want to
accept, and "application/xml-patch+xml" could be a simple default
format that can be used unless a server decides to use a different
(maybe more sophisticated) patch format for XML.
The format for patch documents is based on the XML patch framework
defined in RFC 5261 [RFC5261]. While RFC 5261 does define a concrete
syntax as well as the media type "application/patch-ops-error+xml"
for error documents, it only defines XML Schema (XSD)
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] types for patch operations. The
concrete document format and the media type for patch operations are
defined in an XSD defined in this specification.
This specification relies on RFC 5261 but also requires that errata
reported to date are taken into account. The main reason for the
errata is the problematic ways in which RFC 5261 relies on XML Path
Language (XPath) as the expression language for selecting the
location of a patch, while at the same time XPath's data model does
Wilde Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
not contain sufficient information to determine whether such a
selector indeed can be used for a patch operation or should result in
an error. Specifically, the problem occurs with namespaces, where
XPath does not expose namespace declaration attributes, while the
patch model needs them to determine whether or not a namespace patch
is allowed. Appendix A contains more information about the general
problem and errata reports.
2. Patch Documents
The following sections describe and illustrate the XML patch document
format.
2.1. Patch Document Format
The XML patch document format is based on a simple schema that uses a
"patch" element as the document element and allows an arbitrary
sequence of "add", "remove", and "replace" elements as the children
of the document element. These children follow the semantics defined
in RFC 5261, which means that each element is treated as an
individual patch operation, and the result of each patch operation is
a patched XML document that is the target XML document for the next
patch operation.
The following simple example patch document contains a single patch
operation. This operation adds a new attribute called
"new-attribute" to the document element of the target XML document.
An XML patch document always uses a "patch" element in the
"urn:ietf:rfc:7351" namespace as the document element that contains
zero or more patch operation elements, which are also in the
"urn:ietf:rfc:7351" namespace.
<p:patch xmlns:p="urn:ietf:rfc:7351">
<p:add sel="*" type="@new-attribute">value</p:add>
</p:patch>
The following more complex example patch document uses the example
from RFC 5261, Section A.18 (but changing the example namespaces to
example.com URIs); it uses the same "patch" element and XML namespace
as shown in the simpler example. It shows the general structure of
an XML patch document with multiple operations, as well as an example
of each operation.
Wilde Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
<p:patch xmlns="http://example.com/ns1"
xmlns:y="http://example.com/ns2"
xmlns:p="urn:ietf:rfc:7351">
<p:add sel="doc/elem[@a='foo']">
<!-- This is a new child -->
<child id="ert4773">
<y:node/>
</child>
</p:add>
<p:replace sel="doc/note/text()">Patched doc</p:replace>
<p:remove sel="*/elem[@a='bar']/y:child" ws="both"/>
<p:add sel="*/elem[@a='bar']" type="@b">new attr</p:add>
</p:patch>
As this example demonstrates, both the document element "patch" and
the patch operation elements are in the same XML namespace. This is
the result of RFC 5261 only defining types for the patch operation
elements, which then can be reused in schemas to define concrete
patch elements.
RFC 5261 defines XSD [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] for the patch
operation types. The following schema for the XML patch media type
is based on the types defined in RFC 5261, which are imported as
"rfc5261.xsd" in the following schema. The schema defines a "patch"
document element, and then allows an unlimited (and possibly empty)
sequence of the "add", "remove", and "replace" operation elements,
which are directly based on the respective types from the schema
defined in RFC 5261.
<xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:rfc:7351"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xs:import schemaLocation="rfc5261.xsd"/>
<xs:element name="patch">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:element name="add" type="add"/>
<xs:element name="remove" type="remove"/>
<xs:element name="replace" type="replace"/>
</xs:choice>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
Wilde Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
2.2. Patch Examples
Since the semantics of the XML patch operations are defined by RFC
5261, please refer to the numerous examples in that specification for
more XML patch document examples. All the examples in RFC 5261 can
be taken as examples for the XML patch media type, when looking at
them with two minor changes in mind.
The two differences are that XML patch documents always use the
"patch" element as the document element and that both the "patch"
element and the individual operation elements in XML patch documents
have to be in the XML namespace with the URI "urn:ietf:rfc:7351".
For example, consider the patch example in RFC 5261, Appendix A.1,
"Adding an Element". In this example, the patch is applied to the
following XML document:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<doc>
<note>This is a sample document</note>
</doc>
The patch example is based on the following patch document (with the
element and namespace changes described above):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<p:patch xmlns:p="urn:ietf:rfc:7351">
<p:add sel="doc"><foo id="ert4773">This is a new child</foo></p:add>
</p:patch>
Applying the patch results in the following XML document:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<doc>
<note>This is a sample document</note>
<foo id="ert4773">This is a new child</foo></doc>
3. IANA Considerations
The Internet media type [RFC6838] for an XML patch document is
application/xml-patch+xml.
Type name: application
Subtype name: xml-patch+xml
Required parameters: none
Wilde Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
Optional parameters:
charset: Same as charset parameter for the media type
"application/xml" as specified in RFC 7303 [RFC7303].
Encoding considerations: Same as encoding considerations of media
type "application/xml" as specified in RFC 7303 [RFC7303].
Security considerations: This media type has all of the security
considerations described in RFC 7303 [RFC7303], RFC 5261
[RFC5261], and RFC 3470 [RFC3470], plus those listed in Section 4.
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Published specification: RFC 7351
Applications that use this media type: Applications that
manipulate XML documents.
Additional information:
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): XML documents often use ".xml" as the file
extension, and this media type does not propose a specific
extension other than this generic one.
Macintosh file type code(s): TEXT
Person & email address to contact for further information: Erik
Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: none
Author: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Change controller: IETF
Wilde Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
4. Security Considerations
The security considerations from RFC 5261 [RFC5261] apply to the
application/xml-patch+xml media type.
In addition, parsing XML may entail including information from
external sources through XML's mechanism of external entities.
Implementations, therefore, should be aware of the fact that standard
parsers may resolve external entities and thus include external
information as a result of applying patch operations to an XML
document.
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks for comments and suggestions provided by Bas de Bakker, Tony
Hansen, Bjoern Hoehrmann, and Julian Reschke.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC3470] Hollenbeck, S., Rose, M., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines for
the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML)
within IETF Protocols", BCP 70, RFC 3470, January 2003.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5261] Urpalainen, J., "An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch
Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath)
Selectors", RFC 5261, September 2008.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC
6838, January 2013.
[RFC7303] Thompson, H. and C. Lilley, "XML Media Types", RFC 7303,
July 2014.
6.2. Informative References
[Err3477] RFC Errata, "Errata ID 3477", RFC 5261.
[Err3478] RFC Errata, "Errata ID 3478", RFC 5261.
[RFC5789] Dusseault, L. and J. Snell, "PATCH Method for HTTP", RFC
5789, March 2010.
Wilde Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.
[W3C.REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407]
Robie, J., Wood, L., Champion, M., Hegaret, P., Nicol, G.,
Le Hors, A., and S. Byrne, "Document Object Model (DOM)
Level 3 Core Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407, April 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407>.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Sperberg-McQueen, C., Yergeau, F., Paoli, J., Maler, E.,
and T. Bray, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xml-20081126, November 2008,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
[W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208]
Hollander, D., Layman, A., Bray, T., Tobin, R., and H.
Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208,
December 2009,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn,
"XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide
Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028,
October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028>.
[W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]
DeRose, S. and J. Clark, "XML Path Language (XPath)
Version 1.0", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
REC-xpath-19991116, November 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214]
Boag, S., Berglund, A., Kay, M., Simeon, J., Robie, J.,
Chamberlin, D., and M. Fernandez, "XML Path Language
(XPath) 2.0 (Second Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xpath20-20101214, December 2010,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xpath20-20101214>.
Wilde Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
Appendix A. Implementation Hints
This section is informative. It describes some issues that might be
interesting for implementers, but it might also be interesting for
users of XML patch that want to understand some of the differences
between standard XPath 1.0 processing and the processing model of
selectors in RFC 5261.
Specifically, the issues described in the following two sections have
been identified as technical issues with RFC 5261 and have been filed
as errata. Implementers interested in using XML patch are encouraged
to take those errata into account when implementing XML patch
documents. The issue about "Matching Namespaces" described in
Appendix A.1 has been filed as RFC Errata ID 3477 [Err3477]. The
issue about "Patching Namespaces" described in Appendix A.2 has been
filed as RFC Errata ID 3478 [Err3478].
A.1. Matching Namespaces
RFC 5261 defines standard rules for matching prefixed names in
expressions: any prefixes are interpreted according to the namespace
bindings of the diff document (the document that the expression is
applied against). This means that each prefixed name can be
interpreted in the context of the diff document.
For unprefixed names in expressions, the rules depart from XPath 1.0
[W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]. XPath 1.0 defines that unprefixed names in
expressions match namespace-less names (i.e., there is no "default
namespace" for names used in XPath 1.0 expressions). RFC 5261
requires, however, that unprefixed names in expressions must use the
default namespace of the diff document (if there is one). This means
that it is not possible to simply take a selector from a patch
document and evaluate it in the context of the diff document
according to the rules of XPath 1.0 because this would interpret
unprefixed names incorrectly. As a consequence, it is not possible
to simply take an XPath 1.0 processor and evaluate XML patch
selectors in the context of the diff document.
As an extension of XPath 1.0's simple model, XPath 2.0
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214] specifies different processing rules for
unprefixed names: they are matched against the URI of the "default
element/type namespace", which is defined as part of an expression's
static context. In some XPath 2.0 applications, this can be set; XSL
Transformations (XSLT) 2.0, for example, has the ability to define an
"xpath-default-namespace", which then will be used to match
unprefixed names in expressions. Thus, by using an XPath 2.0
implementation that allows one to set this URI, and setting it to the
default namespace of the diff document (or leaving it undefined if
Wilde Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
there is no such default namespace), it is possible to use an out-of-
the-box XPath 2.0 implementation for evaluating XML patch selectors.
Please keep in mind, however, that evaluating selectors is only one
part of applying patches. When it comes to applying the actual patch
operation, neither XPath 1.0 nor XPath 2.0 are sufficient because
they do not preserve some of the information from the XML syntax
(specifically namespace declarations) that is required to correctly
apply patch operations. The following section describes this issue
in more detail.
Please note that [RFC5261], Section 4.2.2 on namespace matching
explains XPath 2.0's rules incorrectly. For this reason, RFC Errata
ID 3477 is available for Section 4.2.2 of RFC 5261.
A.2. Patching Namespaces
One of the issues when patching namespaces based on XPath is that
XPath exposes namespaces differently than the XML 1.0
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126] syntax for XML namespaces
[W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208]. In the XML syntax, a namespace is
declared with an attribute using the reserved name or prefix "xmlns",
and this results in this namespace being available recursively
through the document tree. In XPath, the namespace declaration is
not exposed as an attribute (i.e., the attribute, although
syntactically an XML attribute, is not accessible in XPath), but the
resulting namespace nodes are exposed recursively through the tree.
RFC 5261 uses the terms "namespace declaration" and "namespace"
almost interchangeably, but it is important to keep in mind that the
namespace declaration is an XML syntax construct that is unavailable
in XPath, while the namespace itself is a logical construct that is
not visible in the XML syntax, but a result of a namespace
declaration. The intent of RFC 5261 is to patch namespaces as if
namespace declarations were patched; thus, it only allows patching
namespace nodes on the element nodes where the namespace has been
declared.
Patching namespaces in XML patch is supposed to "emulate" the effect
of actually changing the namespace declaration (which is why a
namespace can only be patched at the element where it has been
declared). Therefore, when patching a namespace, even though XPath's
"namespace" axis is used, implementations have to make sure that not
only the single selected namespace node is being patched but that all
namespaces nodes resulting from the namespace declaration of this
namespace are also patched accordingly.
Wilde Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
This means that an implementation might have to descend into the
tree, matching all namespace nodes with the selected prefix/URI pair
recursively, until it encounters leaf elements or namespace
declarations with the same prefix it is patching. Determining this
requires access to the diff document beyond XPath, because, in XPath
itself, namespace declarations are not represented; thus, such a
recursive algorithm wouldn't know when to stop. Consider the
following document:
<x xmlns:a="tag:42">
<y xmlns:a="tag:42"/>
</x>
If this document is patched with a selector of /x/namespace::a, then
only the namespace node on element x should be patched, even though
the namespace node on element y has the same prefix/URI combination
as the one on element x. However, determining that the repeated
namespace declaration was present at all on element y is impossible
when using XPath alone, which means that implementations must have an
alternative way to determine the difference between the document
above, and this one:
<x xmlns:a="tag:42">
<y/>
</x>
In this second example, patching with a selector of /x/namespace::a
should indeed change the namespace nodes on elements x and y, because
they both have been derived from the same namespace declaration.
The conclusion of these considerations is that for implementing XML
patch, access closer to the XML syntax (specifically access to
namespace declarations) is necessary. As a result, implementations
attempting to exclusively use the XPath model for implementing XML
patch will fail to correctly address certain edge cases (such as the
one shown above).
Note that XPath's specific limitations do not mean that it is
impossible to use XML technologies other than XPath. The Document
Object Model (DOM) [W3C.REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407], for example,
does expose namespace declaration attributes as regular attributes in
the document tree; thus, they could be used to differentiate between
the two variants shown above.
Please note that RFC 5261, Section 4.4.3 (on replacing namespaces)
mixes the terms "namespace declaration" and "namespace". For this
reason, RFC Errata ID 3478 is available for Section 4.4.3 of RFC
5261.
Wilde Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
Appendix B. ABNF for RFC 5261
RFC 5261 [RFC5261] does not contain an ABNF grammar for the allowed
subset of XPath expressions but includes an XSD-based grammar in its
type definition for operation types. In order to make implementation
easier, this appendix contains an ABNF grammar that has been derived
from the XSD expressions in RFC 5261. In the following grammar,
"xpath" is the definition for the allowed XPath expressions for
remove and replace operations, and "xpath-add" is the definition for
the allowed XPath expressions for add operations. The names of all
grammar productions are the ones used in the XSD-based grammar of RFC
5261.
Wilde Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
anychar = %x00-ffffffff
ncname = 1*%x00-ffffffff
qname = [ ncname ":" ] ncname
aname = "@" qname
pos = "[" 1*DIGIT "]"
attr = ( "[" aname "='" 0*anychar "']" ) /
( "[" aname "=" DQUOTE 0*anychar DQUOTE "]" )
valueq = "[" ( qname / "." ) "=" DQUOTE 0*anychar DQUOTE "]"
value = ( "[" ( qname / "." ) "='" 0*anychar "']" ) / valueq
cond = attr / value / pos
step = ( qname / "*" ) 0*cond
piq = %x70.72.6f.63.65.73.73.69.6e.67.2d
%x69.6e.73.74.72.75.63.74.69.6f.6e
; "processing-instruction", case-sensitive
"(" [ DQUOTE ncname DQUOTE ] ")"
pi = ( %x70.72.6f.63.65.73.73.69.6e.67.2d
%x69.6e.73.74.72.75.63.74.69.6f.6e
; "processing-instruction", case-sensitive
"(" [ "'" ncname "'" ] ")" ) / piq
id = ( %x69.64 ; "id", case-sensitive
"(" [ "'" ncname "'" ] ")" ) /
( %x69.64 ; "id", case-sensitive
"(" [ DQUOTE ncname DQUOTE ] ")" )
com = %x63.6f.6d.6d.65.6e.74 ; "comment", case-sensitive
"()"
text = %x74.65.78.74 ; "text", case-sensitive
"()"
nspa = %x6e.61.6d.65.73.70.61.63.65 ; "namespace", case-sensitive
"::" ncname
cnodes = ( text / com / pi ) [ pos ]
child = cnodes / step
last = child / aname / nspa
xpath = [ "/" ] ( ( id [ 0*( "/" step ) "/" last ] ) /
( 0*( step "/" ) last ) )
xpath-add = [ "/" ] ( ( id [ 0*( "/" step ) "/" child ] ) /
( 0*( step "/" ) child ) )
Please note that the "ncname" production listed above does not fully
capture the constraints of the original XSD-based definition, where
it is defined as "\i\c*". DIGIT and DQUOTE are defined by the ABNF
specification [RFC5234].
Wilde Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7351 XML Patch August 2014
Author's Address
Erik Wilde
UC Berkeley
EMail: dret@berkeley.edu
URI: http://dret.net/netdret/
Wilde Informational [Page 14]