W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2005

Re: LC74c proposed resolution

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 09:59:19 +0200
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1117439959.2472.2.camel@Kalb>

Amy, I like the suggestion, I also think that making xml:lang mandatory
and unique on repeated documentations would be overkill.

I wonder though, for schema validation, do we actually need to allow
extensibility attributes to allow xml:lang? I have a vague feeling that
the xml: attributes are exempt from validation so they are allowed no
matter what the schema says. I may be wrong, though, in which case
adding the extensibility attributes on documentation would be good.

Best regards,

Jacek

On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 13:40 -0400, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> Heylas,
> 
> LC74c [1] raises issues related to internationalization of
> documentation elements, and proposes a solution.  Excerpted:
> 
> a) The <documentation> element require an xml:lang attribute. 
>    The attribute may be empty (xml:lang="")
> b) The <documentation> element be allowed to be repeated, 
>    provided the xml:lang attributes in each of the elements be unique.
> 
> I think that this is more than is necessary, on examination.
> 
> I recommend that we do only the following:
> 
> c) add maxOccurs="unbounded" to the reference to wsdl:documentation in
> the definition of DocumentedType.
> 
> We make no statements about how multiple documentations may relate to
> one another, if present, although the use case presented above is
> feasible and even likely.  We neither require xml:lang, nor require it
> to be unique (multiple documentation elements could, in theory, share
> the same xml:lang attribute value).
> 
> *Optionally*, we could make xml:lang a required attribute.  However,
> I'm not convinced that this is useful.  In my experience, much
> documentation seems to be written in Klingon, or possibly in the
> private languages of twins.  Permitting the recurrence of the
> documentation element permits proper internationalization (and
> potentially other use cases involving multiple documentation elements,
> such as an ASCII presentation versus an algorithm in MathML, perhaps,
> or different authorities for different documentation blocks); if it
> allows xml:lang, we're done.
> 
> Unfortunately, we do not allow attribute extension on a document
> element.  *sigh*  So, we should *also* add anyAttribute
> (namespace="##other") to the DocumentationType definition.
> 
> In short: change the recurrence of wsdl:documented in DocumentedType to
> *, add attribute extensibility DocumentationType, let usage of multiple
> documentation elements be determined in practice.
> 
> [1: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC74c]
> 
> Amy!
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 15:30:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT