W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2007

Re: small problems in part 1 appendix C

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:00:00 -0400
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC0255E3C.D758B585-ON852572C8.00564E5D-852572C8.0057E382@ca.ibm.com>

1) I agree this should be added to tighten up the spec for canonical form. 
I'll wait for Jonathan to reply before I change it.

2) Yes, that's a typo. I'll fix it immediately.

Arthur Ryman, PhD, AoT, DE
Process and Portfolio Management, Rational Division

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-3831 (T/L: 318-8867)
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca

Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
04/25/2007 11:19 AM

WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

small problems in part 1 appendix C

Hi all,

implementing the RDF mapping, I'm also implementing the creation of the
fragment identifiers and I found the following small (maybe editorial)
problems in Appendix C:

1) the canonical form does not say that no xmlns() pointer part should
define the namespace same as the namespace of the WSDL 2.0 document, so
it doesn't seem that the following would be uncanonical, while it should

2) example c-2 has a typo, it declares namespace prefix ns1 but uses
xsTicketAgent in the fifth IRI

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 16:09:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:04 UTC