W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Rationalize URI vs. IRI (Core, clarification)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:53:17 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507280CED@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>

Corresponding changes to the SOAP Binding spec:

- Last sentence before 1.1: 'Line (010) specifies an action URI
  identifying expected semantics.' (Note also case correction.)

- Section 2.1: 'The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Feature is named using 
  the following URI: ...'

- Section 3.1: 'The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Module is identified 
  using the following URI: ...'

- Section 4.1: 'The SOAP 1.1 Addressing 1.0 Extension is identified 
  using the following URI: ...'

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:05 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Rationalize URI vs. IRI (Core, clarification)
> 
> 
> The mixed use of the acronyms URI and IRI is a bit confusing.
> Sometimes
> the draft uses IRI, and sometimes it uses URI.  However, simply using
> IRI throughout has problems too.  We suggest as a principle for when
> to
> use IRI vs. URI that when specific instances of IRIs can be identified
> as URIs by inspection (e.g. the anonymous URI), and we should call
> them
> URIs to make it clear they can be used in any context where a URI is
> allowed.  The types of the properties are rightly described as IRIs,
> since the range of values is greater than allowed by URIs.  Following
> this principle would result in the following changes:
> 
> - Last sentence before 1.1: 'Line (010) specifies an action URI
> identifying expected semantics.' (Note also case correction.)
> 
> - Last sentence in section 2.2: 'The following shows an example
> endpoint
> reference. This element references the endpoint at the URI
> "http://example.com/www.fabrikam/acct".' (Note also extra "the"
> removed.)
> 
> - Section 3 [relationship]: 'The message identifier IRI may refer to a
> specific message, or be the following well-known URI that means
> "unspecified message":
> "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/id/unspecified".'
> 
> - Table 3-1 heading 'URI'.
> 
> - Section 3 [relationship]: 'A reply message MUST contain a
> [relationship] property consisting of the predefined reply URI and the
> message id property of the request message.'
> 
> - Section 3 [relationship]: 'WS-Addressing defines the following
> well-known URI for use by endpoints that cannot have a stable,
> resolvable IRI:
> "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/role/anonymous".'
> 
> - Section 3.1 4th bullet: '[relationship]: a new pair of IRIs is added
> to this value as follows; the relationship type is the predefined
> reply
> URI "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply" ...'
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 18:53:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:38 GMT