W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

Re: issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using ncnames?

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:51:07 -0400
To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF4F10018F.E27C2F01-ON85256B9D.006B996E@pok.ibm.com>

Martin,

There is no requirement that operation names be unique within a
targetNamespace. That means that you can only specify an operation *within*
a portType, and that an NCName is sufficient for that. What would be then
the benefit  of namespace qualifying the operation name?

Paco



"Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>@w3.org on 04/16/2002 08:40:27
AM

Sent by:    www-ws-desc-request@w3.org


To:    <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc:
Subject:    Re: issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using
       ncnames?



Ahhh, if only default namespace decls didn't exist, we wouldn't have this
confusion...

Names in the XML 1.0 + Namespaces in XML world are either qualified or
unqualified. Whether a name is qualified or unqualified is largely
orthogonal to whether it is prefixed or unprefixed. I say largely because a
prefixed name is always a qualified name.

All references in WSDL SHOULD be QNames. Unfortunately certain references
in
WSDL are not QNames ( e.g. mapping between operations in a binding and
operations in a portType ). I know that the reference from binding to the
portType is by QName, it just seems weird that the mapping of operations is
by local name.

Gudge



----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using
ncnames?


> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 06:56:22 -0400, in soap you wrote:
>
> >>"Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> >Yes, the references across NSs always have to be QNames. I believe
> >> >telling whether a name is a QName or an NCName is simple- just see
> >> >whether there's a colon or not.
> >>
> >> but an unprefixed value, is still a valid QName.
> >
> >Isn't it a QName with a null namespace URI? Is there a difference
> >between that and an NCName??
>
> No, its a QName with a null prefix. the namespace URI will depend on
> whatever the default namespace is at that scope.
>
> >> It sounds to me like its just making it more complex, not less. Stick
> >> with QNames and make it clearer in the prose.
> >
> >That would be my own personal preference too!
> >
> >Sanjiva.
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 15:51:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT