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

RE: 6.7.1.1 Construction of the request IRI using the http location

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:37:43 +1100
Message-ID: <BEE2BD647C052D4FA59B42F5E2D946B33757C2@AUSYMS12.ca.com>
To: "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, "www-ws-desc" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


My understanding is that we should throw a fault for the last case. If
we did not throw a fault, I would prefer that we supply an empty value
for the third element. The other two options you list (recycling the
list, or recycling the last element) could have unpleasant and
misleading consequences.

Tony Rogers
tony.rogers@ca.com

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Philippe Le Hegaret
Sent: Friday, 17 November 2006 0:51
To: www-ws-desc
Subject: 6.7.1.1 Construction of the request IRI using the http location


Given this instance data:
 <root>
   <foo>1</foo>
   <foo>2</foo>
 </root>

With http:location="t"
we should obtain "t?foo=1&foo=2"

With http:location="t/{foo}"
we should obtain "t/1?foo=2"

With http:location="t/{foo}/{foo}"
we should obtain "t/1/2"

With http:location="t/{foo}/{foo}/{foo}"
should we obtain an error (we don't have 3 foo elements in the instance
data) or, should we obtain "t/1/2/1" or "t/1/2/2" ?

As a side comment, using element names in the http:location adds an
additional message schema constraint, in addition to the ones already
defined the IRI style: those element names shouldn't be optional. If one
of those http:location element names is defined as optional in the
schema, not including it in the instance data could result in a runtime
error.

Philippe
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 23:37:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:42 GMT