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

RE: Issue 217: Syntax for multiple styles

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:15:45 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF22EC@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

my (probably confused) thinking:


1) this puts 'style' firmly into the realms of an optional extension. 
someone not interested in a given namespace can more easily ignore it.
we can't mark extension attributes as 'required', no? 

This demotion of style is a good or bad thing depending on your POV 
 - i think it's a good thing.


2) it actively encourages other style related extensions to be provided
as other attributes in the 'foo' namespace, e.g.:

     <operation foo:rpc="true" 
         foo:debug="true" 
         foo:camelStyleNames="true" 
         foo:useInOutParameters="true"
         ....

this is again, good or bad depending on your POV.
 - i think good!


3) it allows for multiple styles to be easily attached to an operation,
as in Mark's foobar example.

 - good in anyone's book, surely.


So that's a big +1!

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
Sent: 10 June 2004 08:27
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 217: Syntax for multiple styles



Talking about style, I guess you really meant  foo:rpc="true"? ;-)

Yes, let's separate the semantics (and have XML do the parsing for us).

+1. (I guess it's all backwards.)

JJ.

Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> 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 Thursday, 10 June 2004 08:15:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT