- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:46:30 -0700
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
in his proposal for this issue [1], Jonathan suggests that it has already been addressed by issue 98 [2]. The resolution to 98 does address the bulk of the concern I had here. However, from a stylistic standpoint (no pun intended), I would prefer that such things be flagged with separate attributes, e.g., instead of <operation style="http://some/uri/that/says/this/is/RPC http://some/other/uri/that/says/this/is/PUT"> something like <operation foo:rpc="1" bar:webMethod="PUT"> seems preferable. However, this isn't critically important, and if the WG prefers a URI, so be it. I would note that the resolution to issue 98 hasn't yet been incorporated into the draft (apologies if this is known to the editors; just want to make sure it doesn't get lost). 1. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd- issues.html#x217 2. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd- issues.html#x98 P.S. Stepping back for a moment, I notice something curious in relation to issue 221, regarding QNames vs. URIs. WSDL has chosen to use QNames as the primary means of identifying components (for which many use cases include references from outside the document), while choosing URIs to identify operation styles, a mechanism with a purely local semantic. It seems to me that this is backwards; URIs are more useful for things that might be referenced on the greater Web, whilst QNames are safer and more useful in a specialised, controlled contexts. But that's a discussion for another thread, perhaps. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 16:47:02 UTC