W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > September 2004

RE: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, Technical comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:34:25 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50526481A@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Regarding your comment below [1], the Working Group agreed to:

- Make explicit that we are defining a new XPointer scheme. 
- Rename the schemes to use a "wsdl." prefix to distinguish them 
  visually from other fragment schemes and reduce the possibility 
  of name clashes.

Nothing precludes a client from processing one of our schemes (as an extension) on resources served up as application/xml if they so desire - that's a result of making it explicit that we're defining a new XPointer scheme.  Most XML-specific clients will simply ignore the unrecognized XPointer schemes.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC6d

> > > - C.2 defines fragment identifiers compatible with the XPointer
> > > Framework; I suspect this means you're defining a new scheme for
> > > XPointer, in which case this should be said explicitly; also, it would
> > > probably be wise to mention that at the time of this document, only
> the
> > > application/wsdl+xml MIME-type references this scheme as a possible
> > > xpointer scheme - i.e., I don't think a WSDL resource served as
> > > application/xml can ben resolved using this XPointer scheme
> >
> > Not yet resolved.
> >
> > [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC6c]
> --
> Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
> W3C/ERCIM
> mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 23:34:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT