W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > November 2006

WSDL 1.1 element identifiers review

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:48:34 -0800
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22571FD0E5D30D@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Review based on current document in CVS:

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/wsdl11elementidentifiers.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8



I think these are all editorial comments.



/paulc



1. Front page material



I expect we will actually publish this as a W3c Working Group Draft not as a W3C Note.  The Status section should indicate that we plan to finalize it as a Note (see below).



2. Status section



Replace the status section with the following:



This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index<http://www.w3.org/TR/> at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

This is the First Public Working Draft<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/tr.html#first-wd> of the Web Services Policy 1.5 - Framework specification. This Working Draft was produced by the members of the Web Services Policy Working Group<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/>. The Working Group expects to advance this Working Draft to Note Status when the content is stable. Note that this Working Draft does not necessarily represent a consensus of the Working Group.

Discussion of this document takes place on the public public-ws-policy@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org> mailing list (public archive<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/>) and within Bugzilla<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=WS-Policy&component=Framework&component=Framework%2BAttachment&component=Framework%2BAttachment%2BPrimer>. Comments on this specification should be made following the Description for Issues<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/#issues> of the Working Group.

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/>. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures<http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/39293/status> made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s)<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential> must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure>.



3. Abstract



Change "This document" to "WSDL 1.1 Element Identifiers".



4. Table of Contents



Remove Section 4.2 here in the TOC and later in the document since it is currently empty.



5. Section 2 Fragment Identifiers



There are two hyperlinks marked as "???" in the fourth paragraph.  Please fix these.


6. Rules for determining pointer parts for WSDL 1.1 elements



The Pointer Part column uses italics to indicate variables to be substituted inconsistently.  The "Type Definition" row uses italics for "type" in the Pointer Part column: "wsdl11.types(types)" but this style is not used in the rest of the rows.



7. Section 3 IRI-References for WSDL 1.1 Elements



Change "This Appendix" to "This section".



8. Section 2 Fragment Identifiers



Add a hyperlink to the WSDL 1.1 reference in the first sentence ("This section defines a fragment identifier syntax for identifying elements of a WSDL 1.1 document").



9. Section 3.1 3.1 WSDL 1.1 IRIs



a) Unclear reference to WSDL 1.1 media type



"If the media type is set to the WSDL 1.1 media type"



I think this sentence is not clear since the WSDL 1.1 specification does not specify a media type for WSDL 1.1 documents.  I think this should be reworded to something like the following: "If the media type is set to the WSDL 1.1 media type i.e. application+xml".



b) Awkward wording



Change the following sentence:



"In keeping with the WSDL 1.1, which has a recommendation that that the namespace URI be dereferencible to a WSDL 1.1 document, this appendix specifies the use of the namespace IRI with the WSDL 1.1 fragment identifiers to form an IRI-reference."



to the following:



"In keeping with WSDL 1.1, which has a recommendation that the namespace URI be dereferencible to a WSDL 1.1 document, this section specifies the use of the namespace IRI with the WSDL 1.1 fragment identifiers to form an IRI-reference."



c) "???" hyperlink



There is a hyperlink marked as "???".  Please fix this.



/paulc



Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329

mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com











> -----Original Message-----

> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-

> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton

> Sent: November 29, 2006 2:16 PM

> To: David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org

> Subject: RE: RE: WSDL 1.1 element identifiers extensions, not defined

>

>

>

> WG members should review this Editor's before our next meeting on Dec 6 so

> that we can determine if we have consensus to publish an initial WD of

> this document.

>

> You can raise technical issues against the document using Bugzilla since

> there is a component for it named "WSDL1.1-Element-Identifiers"

>

> /paulc

>

> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

> Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329

> mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com

>

>

>

>

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-

> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard

> > Sent: November 24, 2006 7:11 PM

> > To: David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org

> > Subject: RE: WSDL 1.1 element identifiers extensions, not defined

> >

> >

> > I was kind of right... And kind of wrong...

> >

> > WSDL 2.0 defines 3 extensions, but for the majority of their components

> > they don't because they are attributes.  So I took what they did for the

> > 3 elements and in a similar style defined that for the soap binding

> > only.  The refresh is at

> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/wsdl11elementidentifi

> > ers.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8

> >

> > Note, I'm not sure if we can get away with the element decls on the

> > soap:header.

> >

> > Cheers,

> > Dave

> >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org

> > > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard

> > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:05 PM

> > > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org

> > > Subject: WSDL 1.1 element identifiers extensions, not defined

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi all,

> > >

> > > Chris asked for an extension in wsdl 1.1, and Asir suggested

> > > using the SOAP binding.  At this point, I don't believe there

> > > is a WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0 identifier for HTTP, SOAP or MIME

> > > bindings.  That's because their Xpointer schemes are not defined.

> > >

> > > I've asked the WSDL 2.0 group about this, whether I'm missing

> > > something or not.  Assuming I'm right, that leaves us a few choices:

> > > 1. Do nothing, that is do not support identifers for the

> > > HTTP, SOAP or MIME bindings.

> > > 2. Create identifers for a subset of the elements defined.  One fairly

> > > reasonable set seems to be the SOAP bindings.   This is fairly

> > > straightforward to do.  Call this option #2 (soap only) 3.

> > > Create identifers for all the elements defined.

> > >

> > > I can live with either #1 or #2 (soap only) but I think that

> > > the http and mime bindings in wsdl 1.1 are almost never used

> > > and so is well outside an 80/20 point.

> > >

> > > Cheers,

> > > Dave

> > >

> > >

>
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 19:48:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:43 GMT