W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > June 2005

RE: Comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:18:04 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507D841FF@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

The WG closed this issue without further action.  We believe our use of
namespaces is similar to XML Schemas, and is natural in the syntax
despite the component model notes.  The WG was unable to envision a
solution without severe consequences to the syntax. If this resolution
is unacceptable, please let us know within two weeks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:12 PM
> To: Arthur Ryman
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org; public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments
> 
> > The answer is "no", we mean more. The problem is that we are
> assigning
> > QNames to "nested" components. In the case you cite, the Interface
> Fault
> > component is nested in an Interface component. While the QName of
> the
> > Interface component is enough to uniquely identlfy it, the Interface
> > Fault QName is "local" to the parent Interface.
> >
> > Put another way, each Interface component defines a new symbol space
> for
> > Interface Fault component names.
> 
> Okay, thanks.
> 
> I understand what you're doing, and I think I understand why.
> 
> It doesn't seem very xml-like.
> 
> 	/r$
> 
> --
> Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology
> http://www.datapower.com
> XS40 XML Security Gateway
> http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 21:18:18 GMT

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