- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:17:40 -0800
- To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I have an action to describe specifically how IRI support can be added to WS-A. There are several places URIs are used. Foremost is in describing the types of the EPR and Messaging properties. In all cases it seems that IRIs are beneficial. xs:anyURI is used consistently for the XML representation. IRIs map well to xs:anyURI AAUI, so nothing is needed here. We also define a few URIs ourselves. Except for the namespace URI, I don't see any reason on to describe our pre-defined URIs as IRIs (they are both legal URIs and IRIs) to keep the type consistent with the property space. There are a few places where we refer to concepts outside our spec (Namespace URIs, SOAP Action URIs) where keeping URI seems to be the right thing. I believe all the text about converting IRIs to URIs is incorporated through the reference to the IRI spec. I don't believe we need to add a new section ala XLink, XInclude, etc. The change to IRIs is much easier than I have experienced in the past. If what I propose is insufficient, I'm sure the I18N LC review will let us know :-). ---------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, here is my proposal: In the Core spec, globally replace URI with IRI, except in the following situations: - xs:anyURI. This datatype is a proper name, and xs:anyURI already accommodates IRIs. - Section 1.2 Namespaces. No need to say Namespace IRI here. - SOAP Action URI (see def'n of [action] in Section 3.) SOAP action is an xs:anyURI so I don't see any compatibility problems with [action] as an IRI.) Remove the RFC 3986 reference - it's no longer needed and there already is a reference to the IRI RFC. -------- On a separate note, I find the following text a bit ambiguous and propose these _clarifications_: [relationship] : (_I_RI, _I_RI) (0..unbounded) A pair of values that indicate how this message relates to another message. The type of the relationship is identified by a_n I_RI _(the first of each pair)_. The related message is identified by a_n I_RI _(the second of each pair)_ that corresponds to the related message's [message id] property. The message identifier _I_RI may refer to a specific message, or be the following well-known _I_RI that means "unspecified message": "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/id/unspecified" Table 3-1. Predefined [relationship] values _I_RI Description "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply" Indicates that this is a reply to the message identified by the _second IRI of each pair_. -------- In the SOAP Binding spec, globally replace URI with IRI, except in the following situations: - xs:anyURI. This datatype is a proper name, and xs:anyURI already accommodates IRIs. - Section 1.2 Namespaces. No need to say Namespace IRI here. Replace the reference to the URI spec with a reference to the IRI spec. -------- In the WSDL Binding spec: - Replace occurrences of action URI with action IRI. - Tables 4-3 and 4-6, replace predefined http://...reply URI with predefined http://...reply _IRI_. - Replace the reference to the URI spec with a reference to the IRI spec.
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 00:18:14 UTC