W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2003

RE: Revisiting WSDL Compontent Designators

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:21:43 -0800
To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <025c01c3a952$34b86ce0$6401a8c0@beasys.com>
Can we cross-post response to www-tag?  Or should your or I simply post your
message to the TAG saying this is the proposed WSD response.  I think the
TAG should see this.

In general, I'm glad to see this response, barring the issue of URI
construction practices.  I somewhat doubt that the editor of the URI spec,
Tim Bray, etc. had a momemtary lapse on URI design that needs rectification.
:-) I will suggest that the TAG, as part of issue 40
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#URIGoodPractice-40, will provide some
more concrete information on this aspect ASAP.  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:54 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Revisiting WSDL Compontent Designators
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reviewing the draft TAG finding at
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030.
>   Here are
> some thoughts:
> 
> 1) The finding states that using a namespace name for the base of the
> identifier is OK (although it does not unambiguously recommend this
> practice.)
> 
> 2) The finding states that instances of the description 
> language should
> be available by de-referencing the identifier - this implies that WSDL
> should recommend that a WSDL document be available at the
> targetNamespace URI and that the WSDL media type registration include
> the fragment syntax we agree on.
> 
> 3) The finding communicates the feeling that some TAG members 
> have that
> an XPointer-compatible syntax not be used.  Following the 
> minutes of the
> discussion, this appears to be motivated by a belief that unescaped
> parentheses are not allowed in fragments.  But from
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt:
> 
>       fragment      = *uric
>       uric          = reserved | unreserved | escaped
>       unreserved    = alphanum | mark
>       mark          = "-" | "_" | "." | "!" | "~" | "*" | "'" |
>                       "(" | ")"
> 
> Which clearly shows that parens are allowed (and not even 
> reserved).  I
> conclude that this is just a momentary lapse that the TAG will rectify
> soon.  I think our XPointer-compatible syntax is good.
> 
> I also notice that certain names may not be expressible in "alphanum"
> and so we may need to require %-escaping of some characters 
> (assuming we
> want a single URI- (not IRI-) compatible string as an identifier.
> 
> 
> Proposal
> 
> I therefore propose that we adopt the TAG finding (except for the
> missing parens):
> 
> 1) Reintroduce WSDL component designators as an appendix in our
> specification (see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030611/#wsdl-uri-references),
> cleaning up the text to remove the issues and rationale and 
> instead just
> present our solution.
> 
> 2) Add a clause to the appendix providing a rule for escaping 
> characters
> in component names not allowed in URIs (e.g. name characters 
> other than
> alphanum must be %-escaped using UTF-8 byte values).
> 
> 3) Reintroduce these fragment identifiers as a normative part of the
> media-type registration.
> 
> 4) Add a statement recommending to authors to make WSDL 
> available at the
> targetNamespace.
> 
> 
> 


Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 14:23:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT