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

RE: Issue 217: Syntax for multiple styles

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:52 +0200
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr, mark.nottingham@bea.com, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1086877372.20747.8.camel@Kalb>

Hi all (yep, back again),
please note that such a proposal has been presented by me in January
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0054.html 
and it was rejected, and I believe that decision was made in one of our
f2f meetings.

Jacek

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 14:15, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> 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 10:23:24 GMT

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