- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:58:17 -0400
- To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20040914155817.GD25495@w3.org>
Appendix C in Part 1 is not very visible despite being useful, and is incomplete. First, I believe that we should point to Appendix C every time we talk about not being able to a component by a simple QName, such as in sections 2.3.1, 2.4.1 and 2.14.1, but there may be others that I have missed. Second, section C.2 is lacking references for the following components in order for us to fulfill R120, "The description language MUST ensure that all conceptual elements in the description of Messages are addressable by a URI reference"; I am proposing some solutions: - message reference: messageref(interface/operation/direction/label); - fault reference: faultref(interface/operation/direction/label/ref); - binding fault: bindingfault(binding/ref); - binding operation: bindingoperation(binding/ref); - binding message reference: bindingmessageref(binding/operation/direction/label). Third, some of the construct names in the first column are not corresponding exactly to components names: - s/operation/interface operation/; - s/fault/interface fault/. Finally, I find the the x / y convention hard to read. What about something like: endpoint: _endpoint_ being the {name} property of endpoint and _service_ being the {name} property of parent service: endpoint(_service_/_endpoint_) with _foo_ being typographically different, e.g. in italic? Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 21:58:43 UTC