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

Re: Draft I18N requirements for WS

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:07:29 -0700
Message-Id: <2420D3CA-A469-11D8-BAE7-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

There's an interesting intersection between these requirements and the  
ongoing discussion about HTTP features, especially content-negotiation:

> 2 Requirements
>
> 2.1 R001 SOAP Locale Feature
>
> Problem Statement: Service providers and services need information  
> about the locale, language preference, time zone, or other  
> international preferences (such as currency, collation, etc.) of the  
> requester.
>
> Requirement: A SOAP Feature (see [SOAP-Feature], Section 5) that  
> provides the Web service provider international context information  
> (such as locale, language, or other culturally linked preferences)  
> about the requester and which the provider can use to tailor the  
> language, invocation, or operation of services or the operation of the  
> provider (such as language selection in the generation of Faults and  
> so forth).
>
> 2.2 R002 WSDL Locale Feature
>
> Problem Statement: Service providers need to indicate that the SOAP  
> Feature described in R001 is available for a specific service or  
> collection of services.
>
> Requirement: A WSDL feature that describes the international context  
> SOAP Feature described in R001.




On May 12, 2004, at 1:37 PM, David Booth wrote:

>
> FYI, the WS task force of the I18N Working Group has written a draft  
> document on "Requirements for the Internationalization of Web  
> Services"[1].  My own personal comments[2] on the document:
> [[
> In general, I think this is a very interesting document and the
> requirements look reasonable.  I personally think I18N represents an
> excellent test case for WSDL 2.0 and SOAP 1.2.  It is tempting to  
> foist the
> I18N problem off of WSDL and SOAP and onto the application domain,  
> i.e., it
> is tempting to say that I18N is an application issue -- not a WSDL or  
> SOAP
> issue.  But when you consider the fact that many applications will face
> this same need, and it makes sense to have a standard way of  
> addressing it,
> then the question becomes: To what extent do WSDL and SOAP accommodate  
> this
> need for I18N?  Ideally, I18N should be cleanly addressable using  
> existing
> WSDL and SOAP extension mechanisms.  If our existing extension  
> mechanisms
> prove inadequate for addressing I18N, then I believe we will have  
> failed in
> our design of WSDL and SOAP.
> ]]
>
> 1.  
> http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-requirements-edit/ 
> Overview.html
> 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-ws/2004May/0026.html
>
>
> -- 
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2004 19:07:32 GMT

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