W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Comment on WS-I18N WD

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:04:54 +0900
To: "Mary Trumble" <mtrumble@us.ibm.com>, www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s3vyqgdix1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

Hi Mary,

Thanks for the comments. No, they will not be lost :) . I hope we will  
soon find time to go through them.

Regards, Felix.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:57:09 +0900, Mary Trumble <mtrumble@us.ibm.com>  
wrote:

>
> These two sets of comments were previously posted to other lists.  I'm
> re-posting them here to make sure that they don't get lost.
>
> Mary
> ====================================================================
> From: Chris Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
> Date: 09/16/2005
>
> 1. <IBM Chris Ferris> There is no normative (or non-normative for that
> matter) reference to SOAP or WSDL.  Is there a reason for this?  I think
> that the spec should try to provide a binding to both SOAP1.1 (possibly
> non-normative) and SOAP1.2 as well as to both WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0 so as
> to be most practically useful given that at present, SOAP1.1 is most
> commonly used for interoperability and that WSDL2.0 may endure a rather
> protracted roll-out given its complexity, and also given that MSFT seems
> dis-inclined to target its adoption for Longhorn.
>
> 2. <IBM Chris Ferris> It references WS-Routing, yet the actual reference
> in the references section is to the W3C WS-Addressing specification.
> WS-Routing is defunct as far as the set of WS-* specs is concerned.
>
> 3. <IBM Chris Ferris> Secondly, there seems only to be a mapping to
> WSDL2.0 features and properties.  IBM (amongst others) doesn't support
> the F&P aspect of WSDL2.0 [2].  Basically, it directly competes with
> WS-Policy.
>
> 4. <IBM Chris Ferris> IMO, the spec should be leveraging the SOAP1.2
> soap:relay attribute [3] and should use the
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/next role for i18n
> processing to achieve the desired effect (or so I would imagine) of
> having all processing on the message be performed using the desired
> locale.  At the very least, this should probably be recommended by the
> spec.
>
> 5. <IBM Chris Ferris> I'm a little concerned about the use of the "$"
> for certain of the values e.g.  <locale>$default</locale>.  My concern
> is that with certain scripting environments such as PHP, that it may be
> confused with variable substitution and will require escaping.  I guess
> I don't understand why the value space for the locale isn't a URI.
>
> 6. <IBM Chris Ferris> I think the spec needs a little more specificity
> with regards to the content model of the <i18n:international> element.
> Specifically, it should be described using XML Schema (IMO) and also
> should probably be described in terms of the infoset...  similar to the
> way that SOAP's elements and attributes are defined in the SOAP1.2 spec.
>
> ====================================================================
> From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:15:43 -0700
>
> Based on discussion by the WSDL WG based on an initial review by Tony
> Rogers, we'd like to make the following comments about this spec.
>
> In general, this draft is in good shape.
>
> Some minor points:
> 1. although it refers to WSDL repeatedly, starting from the third line
> of the introduction, it does not include a reference to WSDL in the
> References appendix.
>
> 2. also in the References appendix, it has a reference to WS-Routing,
> but the spec referenced is WS-Addressing.
>
> 3. Example 4 could be confusing.  It contains two instances of a
> preferences element, despite the first item in section 3.4 stating that
> only one preferences element is permitted.  This example could lead a
> less careful reader to believe multiple preferences elements are
> permitted.
>
> 4. Example 5 makes two references to a language spec of "de_DE" - should
> this be "de-DE"?
>
> 5. Says "here are some document examples", but gives only one.  Perhaps
> more will be added shortly?
>
> 6. Section 3.2 lists, in the first paragraph, special language tags
> "$neutral" and "$default".  Should it also list "$user"?  "$user" is
> covered in Section 4, but should probably appear in 3.2 as well.
>
> 7. In Example 6, the constraint element needs clarification.  The value
> shown, "locale:$user", is not a valid value for this element (should be
> a valid QName pointing to a schema type, ideally illustrated within the
> spec as well).
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mary K. Trumble
> Tel: (512) 838-0094; T/L 678-0094
> mtrumble@us.ibm.com
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 14:05:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:35 GMT