W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:52:22 -0400
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Message-Id: <A1797DAA-C1B0-11D6-8584-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Thursday, Sep 5, 2002, at 19:06 US/Eastern, 
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> I think I agree with what I take to be Jacek's position.  2.1.1 is 
> fine is
> written prior to this discussion.  Edge names >are< Qnames in the 
> model,
> therefore cannot raise the problem of being difficult to serialize.
>
> Now, in the case of RPC the situation is different.  There we 
> explicitly
> state that our purpose is to provide a means of representing method 
> names
> and named arguments that often originate in some (unspecified) external
> system.  It is those external method and argument names that 
> potentially
> violate the rules of a QName, therefore I think it's appropriate that 
> the
> reference to appendix B go in the RPC section.  I am fairly strongly
> opposed to putting it in 2.1.1, as that seems incoherent (for the 
> reason
> above).
>
+1 for putting it in the RPC section, that's where application defined 
names run into XML restrictions. I could live with it in 2.1.1 but I 
think it makes more sense in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

> Regarding MAY vs. MUST, I think the answer might be SHOULD.
>
> <existing 4.2.1>
> The invocation is represented by a single struct or array containing an
> outbound edge for each [in] or [in/out] parameter. The struct or array 
> is
> named identically to the procedure or method name (see B. Mapping
> Application Defined Names to XML Names).
>
> Each outbound edge either has a label corresponding to the name of the
> parameter (see B. Mapping Application Defined Names to XML Names) or a
> position corresponding to the position of the parameter.
> </existing 4.2.1>
> <proposed>
> The invocation is represented by a single struct or array containing an
> outbound edge for each [in] or [in/out] parameter. The struct or array 
> is
> named identically to the procedure or method name (the conventions of 
> B.
> Mapping Application Defined Names to XML Names SHOULD be used to 
> represent
> method names that are not legal XML names.).
>
> Each outbound edge either has a label corresponding to the name of the
> parameter (the conventions of B. Mapping Application Defined Names to 
> XML
> Names SHOULD be used to represent parameter names that are not legal 
> XML
> names) or a position corresponding to the position of the parameter.
> </proposed>
>
+1 with a corresponding addition to 4.2.2.

Marc.

>
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 09/04/2002 03:58 PM
>
>
>         To:     "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
>         cc:     "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, 
> <xml-dist-app@w3.org>,
> (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix 
> A optional?
>
>
>
> OK, I can live with it in 2.1.1, so let's go with that
>
> Gudge
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
>> Sent: 04 September 2002 20:39
>> To: Martin Gudgin
>> Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; xml-dist-app@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
>>
>>
>>  Gudge,
>>  since 2.1.1 does say an edge name is a QName, there will be
>> no mapping issues in the Encoding because it also uses
>> QNames. Either we remove the mention of XML Schema Qualified
>> Name from 2.1.1 and put the reference to Appendix B into
>> Encoding, or we put the reference to 2.1.1 because that's
>> where the recoding issues come up.
>>
>>
>>                    Jacek Kopecky
>>
>>                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 21:34, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>>> Jacek,
>>>
>>> Henrik originally suggested that the text go in 2.1.1, I disagreed
>> with him, because the Data Model says NOTHING about an
>> encoding. And Appendix B ( ne้ A )really is an encoding.
>>>
>>> Gudge
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 11:52:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT