W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding) from the i18n core wg

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:21:12 +0900
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.szlidma3x1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 04:02:47 +0900, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>  
wrote:

> Wonderful, thanks. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll put this proposal  
> before the WG.

Thank you very much, Addison. That looks fine with me.

Felix

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison.phillips@quest.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:31 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh; Martin Duerst; Felix Sasaki;  
> public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding)  
> from the i18n core wg
>
> Hi Jonathan/WSDL-WG,
>
> This is a personal response. I hope that the WG can address this next  
> week and send you an official response.
>
> The differences are actually quite simple. XLink 1.0 uses almost exactly  
> the same text as IRI Section 3.1 Step 2. It omits Step 1.
>
> Step 1 consists of three things.
>
> 1a. covers when you transcribe an IRI into a digital form from a  
> non-digital form (e.g. when you type in the IRI you wrote down on a  
> napkin earlier). This can't apply to WSDL, of course, unless the WSDL  
> starts to be printed on the sides of buses or the backs of envelopes :-).
>
> 1b. covers conversion from a "legacy" (non-Unicode) encoding to a  
> Unicode encoding and requires normalizing the text using Unicode  
> Normalization Form C. Since WSDL is defining an XML document, which is  
> defined as a sequence of Unicode characters, this is really a  
> consideration for the XML processor, I believe, rather than something  
> WSDL itself needs to address.
>
> 1c. is basically a no-op: it covers normalization of IRIs already in a  
> Unicode encoding (you don't normalize if the IRI is already in Unicode).
>
> So the difference is the application of (1b) when the document is  
> encoded using a non-Unicode encoding, something that probably doesn't  
> apply to WSDL directly anyway: it is something that happens at the XML  
> processor level, XML documents being a sequence of Unicode characters...
>
> In any case, I agree with Martin. I would suggest text more like the  
> following instead:
>
> --
> Note: The xs:anyURI type is defined so that xs:anyURI values are  
> essentially IRIs [RFC 3987]. The conversion from xs:anyURI values to an  
> actual URI is via an escaping procedure defined by [XLink 1.0], which is  
> identical in most respects to IRI Section 3.1. (The only difference  
> being that IRI defines handling of non-Unicode encoded byte sequences,  
> considerations which do not affect this document directly.)
> --
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Addison
>
> Addison P. Phillips
> Globalization Architect, Quest Software
> Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
>> Sent: 2005年11月1日 9:59
>> To: Martin Duerst; Felix Sasaki; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
>> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding)  
>> from
>> the i18n core wg
>>
>>
>> Do you have the differences at your fingertips or will I have to do my
>> own homework? :-)  And, which do you prefer, that we list diffs or stay
>> quiet? I expect the WG to adopt the I18N suggestions without much
>> dissent so having a clear position from the experts is valuable.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 1:08 AM
>> To: Felix Sasaki; Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
>> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding)
>> from the i18n core wg
>>
>> Same comment here as for XLink 1.1: I think it's not a good idea to
>> use the text below (provided by Felix) as such, because it easily
>> may give the impression that there are serious differences when
>> the chances for differences is actually very small. So I think it's
>> better to either list the differences or not say anything.
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>> At 12:41 05/10/26, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>  >
>>  >On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:32:11 +0900, Jonathan Marsh
>> <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
>>  >wrote:
>>  >
>>  >>
>>  >> The WG had a hard time understanding your comment 3:
>>  >>
>>  >> "It would be good if you could mention that although xs:anyURI
>> allows
>>  >> for IRIs (see LC74a), the mapping from IRI to URI in xs:anyURI is
>>  >> currently not defined in terms of IRI. This comment relates also for
>>  >> example to the reference of xs:anyURI in sec. 2.1.2.1 and sec.
>> 3.1.2.1,
>>  >> and to the Adjuncts specification."
>>  >>
>>  >> Can you provide us with more background, or perhaps precise wording
>> for
>>  >> what you'd like to see?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Sorry for being unclear. The problem is as follows, and this is also a
>>  >proposal for some text which you might integrate as a note in WSDL
>> 2.0:
>>  >
>>  >xs:anyURI defines a mapping from xs:anyURI values to URIs via an URI
>>  >reference escaping procedure. In the current version of XML Schema 2,
>> this
>>  >procedure is defined in terms of XLink 1.0, and does not reply on the
>>  >escaping procedure from RFC 3987 (IRI, sec. 3.1). Hence, relying on
>>  >xs:anyURI might generate escaped URIs which are different from IRI
>> based
>>  >escaped URIs.
>>  >
>>  >Is that o.k. with you?
>>  >
>>  >Best regards,
>>  >
>>  >Felix
>>  >
>>  >>
>>  >> -----Original Message-----
>>  >> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
>>  >> [mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix
>>  >> Sasaki
>>  >> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 8:54 PM
>>  >> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
>>  >> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
>>  >> Subject: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding)
>> from
>>  >> the i18n core wg
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> Dear Web Services Description Working Group,
>>  >>
>>  >> With this mail I am sending you i18n comments [1] on the WSDL 2.0
>> WDs
>>  >> (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding). Since I am rather late (please
>>  >> accept
>>  >> my appologies), there was no time to get endorsement from the i18n
>> core
>>  >>
>>  >> wg. So please regard these comments currently as my personal
>> comments.
>>  >>
>>  >> I am looking forward for you feedback. Best regards,
>>  >>
>>  >> Felix Sasaki (team contact of the i18n core wg)
>>  >>
>>  >> [1] http://www.w3.org/International/2005/10/wsdl20-review.html
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 04:21:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:50 GMT