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

IRI proposal

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:17:40 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506A1F03F@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I have an action to describe specifically how IRI support can be added
to WS-A.

There are several places URIs are used.  Foremost is in describing the
types of the EPR and Messaging properties.  In all cases it seems that
IRIs are beneficial.  

xs:anyURI is used consistently for the XML representation.  IRIs map
well to xs:anyURI AAUI, so nothing is needed here.

We also define a few URIs ourselves.  Except for the namespace URI, I
don't see any reason on to describe our pre-defined URIs as IRIs (they
are both legal URIs and IRIs) to keep the type consistent with the
property space.

There are a few places where we refer to concepts outside our spec
(Namespace URIs, SOAP Action URIs) where keeping URI seems to be the
right thing.

I believe all the text about converting IRIs to URIs is incorporated
through the reference to the IRI spec.  I don't believe we need to add a
new section ala XLink, XInclude, etc.  The change to IRIs is much easier
than I have experienced in the past.  If what I propose is insufficient,
I'm sure the I18N LC review will let us know :-).

----------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, here is my proposal:

In the Core spec, globally replace URI with IRI, except in the following
situations:

- xs:anyURI.  This datatype is a proper name, and xs:anyURI already 
  accommodates IRIs.
- Section 1.2 Namespaces.  No need to say Namespace IRI here.
- SOAP Action URI (see def'n of [action] in Section 3.)  SOAP action is 
  an xs:anyURI so I don't see any compatibility problems with [action]
  as an IRI.)

Remove the RFC 3986 reference - it's no longer needed and there already
is a reference to the IRI RFC.

--------
On a separate note, I find the following text a bit ambiguous and
propose these _clarifications_:

[relationship] : (_I_RI, _I_RI) (0..unbounded) 
  A pair of values that indicate how this message relates to another
  message. The type of the relationship is identified by a_n I_RI _(the
  first of each pair)_. The related message is identified by a_n I_RI
  _(the second of each pair)_ that corresponds to the related message's 
  [message id] property. The message identifier _I_RI may refer to a
  specific message, or be the following well-known _I_RI that means 
  "unspecified message":
    "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/id/unspecified" 

  Table 3-1. Predefined [relationship] values
  _I_RI               Description  
  "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply"  
                      Indicates that this is a reply to the 
                      message identified by the _second IRI 
                      of each pair_. 
--------

In the SOAP Binding spec, globally replace URI with IRI, except in the
following situations:

- xs:anyURI.  This datatype is a proper name, and xs:anyURI already 
  accommodates IRIs.
- Section 1.2 Namespaces.  No need to say Namespace IRI here.

Replace the reference to the URI spec with a reference to the IRI spec.

--------

In the WSDL Binding spec:

- Replace occurrences of action URI with action IRI.
- Tables 4-3 and 4-6, replace predefined http://...reply URI with
predefined http://...reply _IRI_.
- Replace the reference to the URI spec with a reference to the IRI
spec.
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 00:18:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:03 GMT