W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2006

RE: Comment on Fragment Identifiers

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:08:03 -0800
To: "www-ws-desc@w3.org." <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20061213140803254.00000000932@amalhotr-pc>

Resending.  Last attempt was truncated.

As you may know, the WS-Policy WG has been doing some work on defining
element identifiers for WSDL 1.1 elements.  We are trying to align this
work with the WSDL 2.0 fragment identifiers described in Appendix A.2 of
the WSDL 2.0 Candidate Recommendation draft of 2006-03-27.

In looking at Appendix A.2 I came across two situations where I think the syntax can be improved.  Consider
	wsdl.interfaceMessageReference(interface/operation/message)
this fragment identifier takes 3 parameters.  The first two take names as values while the third takes a message label whose value can only be "input" or "output".  Having a parameter that takes a keyword as value seems foreign to the general design in which parameters take names as values.  Thus, I suggest that the label be added to the name of the fragment identifier and it have only two parameters, thus:
	wsdl.interfaceMessageInput(interface/operation)
	wsdl.interfaceMessageOutput(interface/operation)

The following row in the table can also be improved.
 	wsdl.interfaceFaultReference(interface/operation/message/fault)
can be replaced by two identifiers
 	wsdl.interfaceInFault(interface/operation/fault)
	wsdl.interfaceInFault(interface/operation/fault)

Similar suggestions apply to 
	wsdl.bindingMessageReference(binding/operation/message) and
	wsdl.bindingFaultReference(binding/operation/message/fault)

I hope you will consider these changes.

All the best, Ashok
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 22:08:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:43 GMT