- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:53:17 -0700
- To: <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>
Corresponding changes to the SOAP Binding spec: - Last sentence before 1.1: 'Line (010) specifies an action URI identifying expected semantics.' (Note also case correction.) - Section 2.1: 'The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Feature is named using the following URI: ...' - Section 3.1: 'The SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Module is identified using the following URI: ...' - Section 4.1: 'The SOAP 1.1 Addressing 1.0 Extension is identified using the following URI: ...' > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws- > addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:05 AM > To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > Subject: Rationalize URI vs. IRI (Core, clarification) > > > The mixed use of the acronyms URI and IRI is a bit confusing. > Sometimes > the draft uses IRI, and sometimes it uses URI. However, simply using > IRI throughout has problems too. We suggest as a principle for when > to > use IRI vs. URI that when specific instances of IRIs can be identified > as URIs by inspection (e.g. the anonymous URI), and we should call > them > URIs to make it clear they can be used in any context where a URI is > allowed. The types of the properties are rightly described as IRIs, > since the range of values is greater than allowed by URIs. Following > this principle would result in the following changes: > > - Last sentence before 1.1: 'Line (010) specifies an action URI > identifying expected semantics.' (Note also case correction.) > > - Last sentence in section 2.2: 'The following shows an example > endpoint > reference. This element references the endpoint at the URI > "http://example.com/www.fabrikam/acct".' (Note also extra "the" > removed.) > > - Section 3 [relationship]: 'The message identifier IRI may refer to a > specific message, or be the following well-known URI that means > "unspecified message": > "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/id/unspecified".' > > - Table 3-1 heading 'URI'. > > - Section 3 [relationship]: 'A reply message MUST contain a > [relationship] property consisting of the predefined reply URI and the > message id property of the request message.' > > - Section 3 [relationship]: 'WS-Addressing defines the following > well-known URI for use by endpoints that cannot have a stable, > resolvable IRI: > "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/role/anonymous".' > > - Section 3.1 4th bullet: '[relationship]: a new pair of IRIs is added > to this value as follows; the relationship type is the predefined > reply > URI "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply" ...' >
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 18:53:43 UTC