- From: Dominique Hazaël-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 Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2004 20:48:22 UTC