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

RE: Fragment identifier syntax not XPointer Framework-compatible

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:50:34 -0700
To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00fa01c6f153$f7a19820$3901a8c0@DELLICIOUS>
Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as a CR079 [1].

 

The Working Group accepted your proposal.  The change is reflected in the
latest editor's draft [2].

 

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of October, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR079 

[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#frag-ids

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

 

  _____  

From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:35 AM
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Subject: Fragment identifier syntax not XPointer Framework-compatible

 

While participating in the TAG discussion at [1], I noticed that our
fragment syntax does not support unknown fragment schemes, or multiple
fragment schemes in general.  This prevents the fragment identifier syntax
from being crafted for use with more than just the wsdl+xml media type.  I
believe the following are not currently a legal WSDL 2.0 fragment
identifiers, though IMO they should be:

 

http://example.com/webservice.wsdl#ignore-me()wsdl.description()

http://example.com/webservice.wsdl#wsdl.description()element(/1)

 

In effect, instead of defining a compatible subset of XPointer, we should be
defining XPointer extensions.  The offending sentence is [2]:

 

A WSDL 2.0 fragment identifier consists of zero or more xmlns pointer parts
(see 3.4 Namespace Binding Context in [XPointer
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content
-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#XPTR#XPTR>  Framework]) followed by a WSDL
2.0 pointer part as defined below.

 

A fix to allow other fragment schemes would be: 

 

A WSDL 2.0 fragment identifier is an XPointer [XPointer
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content
-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#XPTR#XPTR>  Framework], augmented with WSDL
2.0 pointer parts as defined below. Note that many of these parts require
the pre-appearance of one or more xmlns pointer parts (see 3.4 Namespace
Binding Context in [XPointer
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content
-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#XPTR#XPTR>  Framework]).

 

The constraint to have only a single WSDL pointer part (plus any necessary
xmlns declarations) is still valuable, in the context of defining a
canonical WSDL 2.0 IRI, as in [3], so I'd change

 

The IRI provided by the namespace name of the {name
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#propert
y-.name> } property is combined with a fragment identifier as defined in
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content
-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#frag-ids#frag-ids> A.2 Fragment
Identifiers.

 

To 

 

The IRI provided by the namespace name of the {name
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#propert
y-.name> } property is combined with a zero or more xmlns pointer parts (see
3.4 Namespace Binding Context in [XPointer
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content
-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#XPTR#XPTR>  Framework]) followed by a
single WSDL 2.0 pointer part as defined in
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content
-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#frag-ids#frag-ids> A.2 Fragment
Identifiers.

 

One more thing - are these URIs supposed to be fully canonical?  If so, we
might want to constrain the order of the xmlns() parts - e.g. they appear in
the order in which the prefixes are used in the WSDL pointer part, and
ensure no unused xmlns() declarations may appear.

 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Sep/0015.html

[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#frag-ids

[3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#wsdl-iris

 

 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][   <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com> jmarsh@microsoft.com
][  http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com  ]

 
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 18:50:41 GMT

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