W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Issue 177: XML 1.1 support

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:09:01 -0700
Message-ID: <40EDF02D.9070302@oracle.com>
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com, jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org


I don't think it is a problem. But IMHO the value of it is limited from 
a tooling perspective given that most tools (or the ones I'm familiar 
with) are very schema centric and the fact that the message reference 
component is still schema based. I guess the issue is what is the best 
way to migrate to newer versions of XML. Given the 
tools/language-bindings dependency on schema, it seems to me that the 
easier path would be to wait for schema to rev their specs for XML 1.1 
and WSDL to follow.

If you are asking if it would cause any harm -- I don't think it would.


paul.downey@bt.com wrote:

> Hi Anish!
> I'm puzzled why Jonathan's proposal is an problem from the
> "tooling perspective". 
> Surely all that is being required of a component model 
> implementation is that it's able to support a superset of 
> XML 1.0 and 1.1 character set. This remains a subset of the 
> character representation used internally in most programming 
> environments.
> So the value is that a WSDL 2.0 component model can theoretically
> process XML 1.1 document without requiring a spec-rev all for 
> little practical cost.
> AIUI the risk is that a component model may now legitimately 
> contain element names containing characters which cannot be 
> serialised to an XML 1.0 document - but that's nothing new
> given XML 1.1 document aren't compatible with XML 1.0 processors.
> Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: 08 July 2004 09:18
> To: Umit Yalcinalp
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 177: XML 1.1 support
> The proposal seems to future proof WSDL for possible new versions of 
> XML, which is a good thing, but it applies only to XML 1.1 and not beyond.
> In addition, till XML schema supports XML 1.1, the message reference 
> component can only describe XML 1.0 messages. Is that correct?
> If that is so, then it seems to me that creating new types to support 
> XML 1.1 will be of limited value, especially from tooling perspective.
> Is there any reason not to rev WSDL when XML schema supports 1.1?
> Has the WG considered a resolution similar to the resolution of issue 
> 20rec [1] in XMLP WG?
> -Anish
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x20
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 21:12:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:49 UTC