- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:41:23 -0500
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:34 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > Are you suggesting that the form of the component identifier should be > dependent upon what other (local) identifiers are in the document? That > we should define an identifier to a component that might lose its > property of unique identification when other (unrelated but perfectly > legal) components are added to the document? Yes. > This might be possible when you're trusting some infrastructure like > Schemas, DTDs or xml:id to ensure no duplicate identifiers occur, but in > our case duplicates (between symbol spaces) are completely legal. I'd recommend that people don't use the same name for different things in the same WSDL document; at least: not if they want nice URIs for them. > Your suggestion seems quite unstable in the face of WSDL evolution and > the distribution of components between multiple documents, the full > combination of which might not be available until runtime. I'm aware of those risks and I think they're manageable. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 12 September 2005 18:41:38 UTC