W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Section 2.15.3: {address}...otherwise empty.

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:20:07 -0800
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <43C82797.3020100@sun.com>

Quoting from section 2 [1]:

By convention, when specifying the mapping rules from the XML Infoset 
representation of a component to the component itself, an optional 
property that is absent in the component in question is described as 
being “empty”.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#component_model

Thanks,
Roberto

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Table 2-15 says:
> 
> {address 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#property-Endpoint.address#property-Endpoint.address>}
> 
> 	
> 
> The actual value of the |address| //attribute information item// if 
> present, otherwise empty.
> 
> Which implies the property is always present, even if it has an empty 
> value. Yet the prose in 2.15.1 says:
> 
> The {address 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#property-Endpoint.address#property-Endpoint.address>} 
> property is optional to allow for means other than IRIs to be used, e.g. 
> a WS-Addressing Endpoint Reference [/WSA 1.0 Core 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#WSA-Core#WSA-Core>/]. It 
> is also possible that in certain scenarios an address will not be 
> required, in which case this property may not be present.
> 
> ·         {address} OPTIONAL. An //xs:anyURI//. This //xs:anyURI// MUST 
> be an absolute IRI as defined by [/IETF RFC 3987 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#RFC3987#RFC3987>/]. If 
> present, the value of this attribute represents the network address at 
> which the service indicated by the parent Service 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#component-Service#component-Service> 
> component's {interface 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#property-Service.interface#property-Service.interface>} 
> property is offered via the binding referred to by the {binding 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#property-Endpoint.binding#property-Endpoint.binding>} 
> property.
> 
>  
> 
> I think this implies that the “otherwise empty” is inconsistent and 
> should be removed or changed to “otherwise the property is absent” or 
> somesuch.
> 
>  
> 
> <From>*Jonathan Marsh*</ From>**
> 
> <ReplyTo>jmarsh@microsoft.com <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com></ ReplyTo>
> 
> <RelatesTo>http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/</ RelatesTo>
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 22:20:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT