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

Re: import / include issue

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 02:01:50 +0600
Message-ID: <039601c1f14b$0a618910$17aa7cca@lankabook2>
To: "Keith Ballinger" <keithba@microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Yep, and AFAIK we cannot preclude other forms of XML inclusion
even if we wanted to.

Anyone with differing views on this? If not let's close this
issue and get on with the editorial task of fixing import.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Ballinger" <keithba@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "WS-Desc WG (Public)"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:00 AM
Subject: RE: import / include issue


> +1 on both counts. We need an import and we need to define it very
> precisely. We don't need an include if we import right. I assume we
> would allow other XML methods on inclusion though, correct?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:13 PM
> To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: Re: import / include issue
>
> Wow, so much traffic on this topic .. I'm not sure where to start! ;-)
>
> Let me give my current preferred positions for these two issues:
>
> Yes, definitely clarify the existing import mechanism and explain
> it very carefully.
>
> No, do not add an <include> mechanism. There are several XML level
> mechanisms for inclusion (entities, XInclude and others I probably
> don't know about) already. Furthermore, most programming languages
> have survived quite well with only one include/import mechanism
> (Java, C++, C#, C, ...) and hence I don't see the need to have two
> mechanisms in WSDL.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:35 PM
> Subject: import / include issue
>
>
> > Now that the other issues seem to have died down, I'd like to start
> > on the following two issues:
> >
> > <issue id="issue-clarify-import">
> >   <head>Clarify semantics of import.</head>
> >   We have run into many, many people who appear to be confused
> >   about how import is supposed to work. The notion that it only
> >   establishes a relationship between a namespace and a location
> >   is quite hard to grasp it appears. Specifically, the fact that
> >   nothing is said about what one may find about the namespace at
> >   that location appears to be very confusing. We need to clarify
> >   the intended semantics at the minimum.
> >   <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
> > </issue>
> >
> > <issue id="issue-add-include">
> >   <head>Should we add an "include" mechanism?</head>
> >   It appears that most users who use &lt;import&gt; really
> >   treat it as an include mechanism. Should we bite the bullet
> >   and have both import and include mechanisms similar to XSLT?
> >   <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
> > </issue>
> >
> > Please provide your input on how these should be resolved!
> >
> > Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 16:05:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT