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

RE: Issue 217: Syntax for multiple styles

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:40:24 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA203E276FA@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>
Cc: <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

As Jacek points out, we did reject this proposal already, and I don't see any new information being presented.  I'm reluctant to reopen issues, but I'm willing to do it along the rules proposed in many of the latest charters being approved - that is, a supermajority (2/3) of the members in Good Standing.  I won't put this on this week's telcon, but perhaps next week's (or an email poll).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 7:34 AM
> To: jacek.kopecky@deri.at
> Cc: jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr; mark.nottingham@bea.com; www-ws-
> desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 217: Syntax for multiple styles
> 
> 
> Hi Jacek!
> 
> sorry, if it's "Déjà Vu all over again".
> this proposal makes even more sense to me now.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.at]
> Sent: 10 June 2004 15:23
> To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
> Cc: jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr; mark.nottingham@bea.com;
> WS-Description WG
> Subject: RE: Issue 217: Syntax for multiple styles
> 
> 
> 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 10:41:00 GMT

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