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

Re: import / include issue

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:54:57 -0700
Message-ID: <3CD05621.795EB7D3@webmethods.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
CC: Keith Ballinger <keithba@microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Agree we can not prevent other forms of inclusion. Perhaps we should provide
guidelines on when one needs to /could  go beyond the import scheme, to alley
any confusion surrounding this area (or is that the work of WS-I:)

Regards, Prasad

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> 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 16:52:04 GMT

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