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

RE: Issue 189 proposals:

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:23:44 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA8A@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
FWIW i cast myself as being "a user" and i find it OK, 
no less subtle or obscure than XPath or W3C schema patterns .. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Sanjiva Weerawarana 
	Sent: Mon 26/07/2004 21:02 
	To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: Issue 189 proposals:
	
	


	"Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org> writes:
	>
	> If I have:
	>
	>   <data>
	>     <a>1</a>
	>     <b>2</b>
	>     <c>3</c>
	>     <d>4</d>
	>   </data>
	>
	> then the draft as it stands says that:
	> - location="{a}/{b}" serializes as "1/2?c=3&d=4"
	> - location="{a}/{b}/" serializes as "1/2/?c=3&d=4"
	>
	> Now, your proposal is that location="{a}/{b/}" serializes as "1/2",
	> and that the rest be serialized as application/xml, i.e.:
	>
	>   <data>
	>     <c>3</c>
	>     <d>4</d>
	>   </data>
	>
	> Am I right?
	
	I have to say .. this is just too much black art for me. How do you
	expect users to distinguish between "{a}/{b/}" and "{a}/{b}/" with
	such serious implications?
	
	I know we accepted this, but its not a winner feature IMO.
	
	Sanjiva.
	
	

Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 16:24:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT