W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > September 2009

RE: Issue 7426 (URI vs IRI) (was Action 97)

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:32:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
cc: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0909221525100.11174@wnl.j3.bet>
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Doug Davis wrote:

> Why wouldn't the "Namespace" section say IRI ?  My "consistency" radar
> detector is going off :-)
Because most of the WS specs were defined using XML 1.0 < 5th edition, 
where the namespace specification in use was [1], ruling out IRI in 
namespace declaration (but allowed anywhere else). The introduction on XML 
1.0 5th edition and the second edition of namespaces in XML 1.0 [2], 
changed this, but specs like SOAP 1.2 are still referring to XML 1.0 4th 
edition, so let's not introduce differences there.

> Looking at WSA ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/ ) I
> see refs to both URIs and IRIs.  Near as I can tell it uses IRI when its
> talking in a more abstract sense, and uses URI when its talking about a
> particular string.  If we choose to follow this pattern then we need to
> look at each URI and decide which situation each one is in.

Well as said above, only ns ones are potentially problematic.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names-20060816

>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
>
>
> Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> 09/22/2009 02:23 AM
>
> To
> Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> Subject
> RE: Issue 7426 (URI vs IRI) (was Action 97)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Yves, Doug and Asir discuss on this on public mailing list to get a
> proposal ready for next week
>
> Based on how similar issues were addressed in the WS-Addressing [1] and
> WS-Policy [2] Working Groups, here is a proposed amendment to Yves'
> proposal:
>
> In WS-RA specs, globally replace URI with IRI with the following
> exceptions:
>
> * Section X.X Namespaces. No need to say Namespace IRI here.
> * xs:anyURI. This is a proper name, and the datatype accommodates IRIs.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0171
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0073
>
> Regards,
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Lafon
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:20 AM
> To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> Subject: Issue 7426 (URI vs IRI) (was Action 97)
>
> Hi,
> After reading the status or URI/IR support in the specification linked to
> ours, it turns out that they all support IRIs apart from WSDL 1.0 which is
>
> seilent on the subject.
> So we should do the following:
>
> In all our spec, replace URI by IRI, and any reference to RFC3986 to
> RFC3987.
> Cheers,
>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 19:32:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:13 GMT