- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:43:45 +0900
- To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
- Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Hello Jonathan, For the record, I'm also personally satisfied with your WGs decision. I think the considerations about layering are appropriate. I'd personally preferred to solve the "space and friends" issue with a pattern facet to the relevant elements (which wouldn't create layering issues at all), but the "For interoperability" note is fine with me, too. Regards, Martin. At 13:23 05/11/15, Felix Sasaki wrote: > >Dear Jonathan, dear all, > >Thank you very much for your mail. I am personally satisfied with your >changes. If you don't hear anything else from the i18n core wg within the >next 10 days from the i18n core wg, please regard these issues as closed >(as you proposed). > >Best regards, Felix. > >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:45:39 +0900, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com> >wrote: > >> >> Thanks for your comment. The WS Description Working Group tracked these >> issues as Last Call comments LC356 [1], LC357 [2], and LC358 [3] >> respectively. >> >> LC356: In sec. 2.1.2 you write: "The value of the targetNamespace >> attribute >> information item SHOULD be a dereferenceable IRI (see [IETF RFC >> 3987])." >> In sec. 2.1.2.1 you write: "The type of the targetNamespace attribute >> information item is xs:anyURI. Its value MUST be an absolute IRI (see >> [IETF RFC 3987])." Why do you have a SHOULD vs. a MUST? If the SHOULD >> is >> because of "dereferencable", I would propose: "The value of the >> targetNamespace attribute information item MUST be an IRI (see [IETF >> RFC >> 3987]) and SHOULD be dereferenceable." >> >> We agreed to make the change as you suggest. >> >> LC357: In Core: On reference of xs:anyURI: It would be good if you could >> mention that although xs:anyURI allows for IRIs (see LC74a), the >> mapping >> from IRI to URI in xs:anyURI is currently not defined in terms of IRI. >> This comment relates also for example to the reference of xs:anyURI in >> sec. 2.1.2.1 and sec. 3.1.2.1, and to the Adjuncts specification. >> >> There was some dismay at the prospect of requiring additional mapping >> code in every spec that uses IRI and describes it as xs:anyURI. >> Mismatches between specs would hinder interop and make implementation >> more difficult. We're concerned about specifying the behavior of layers >> beneath WSDL at the WSDL layer. We propose to raise this issue at the >> CG. We did however agree to add the following note: >> Note: The xs:anyURI type is defined so that xs:anyURI values are >> essentially IRIs [RFC 3987]. The conversion from xs:anyURI values to >> an >> actual URI is via an escaping procedure defined by [XLink 1.0], which >> is >> identical in most respects to IRI Section 3.1. For interoperability, >> WSDL >> authors are advised to avoid the characters "<", ">", '"', space, "{", >> "}", "|", "\", "^", and "`", which are allowed by the xs:anyURI type >> but >> disallowed in IRIs. >> >> LC358: Core sec. C.2, Binding sec. 2.4 Some examples need better >> formatting. >> >> We directed the editors to format the examples better. >> >> As we plan to go to CR shortly, if we don't hear from you within 10 >> days, we will assume this satisfies your concern. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC356 >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC357 >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC358 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix >> Sasaki >> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 8:54 PM >> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org >> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org >> Subject: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding) from >> the i18n core wg >> >> >> Dear Web Services Description Working Group, >> >> With this mail I am sending you i18n comments [1] on the WSDL 2.0 WDs >> (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding). Since I am rather late (please >> accept >> my appologies), there was no time to get endorsement from the i18n core >> >> wg. So please regard these comments currently as my personal comments. >> >> I am looking forward for you feedback. Best regards, >> >> Felix Sasaki (team contact of the i18n core wg) >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/International/2005/10/wsdl20-review.html >> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 09:55:24 UTC