W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > August 2004

QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, Technical comments

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 02:48:21 +0200
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1091753300.1416.1883.camel@stratustier>
Reviewing http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/ (part 2)

Technical issues:
- the {name} property of the feature and property component uses URIs,
while all the other {name} properties use QNames; I guess my preference
would be to have all the {name} properties be URIs, but at the very
least, I find it confusing to have this inconsistency in the model:
what's the reasoning behind it? maybe instead of using {name} for those,
you should use {identifier}?
- is there any reason why the {value constraint} in properties
components (2.8) is represented in XML as an element rather than an
attribute? given its content model (xs:QName), an attribute would look
more "natural" (and more in-line with the other representations in WSDL)
- purely cosmetic: why 'wsdlLocation' as attribute name, rather than
simply 'Location', since the attribute is namespace qualified (in wsdli:
) ?
- C.2 defines fragment identifiers compatible with the XPointer
Framework; I suspect this means you're defining a new scheme for
XPointer, in which case this should be said explicitly; also, it would
probably be wise to mention that at the time of this document, only the
application/wsdl+xml MIME-type references this scheme as a possible
xpointer scheme - i.e., I don't think a WSDL resource served as
application/xml can ben resolved using this XPointer scheme
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Thursday, 5 August 2004 20:48:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:00 UTC