- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:34:25 -0700
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Regarding your comment below [1], the Working Group agreed to: - Make explicit that we are defining a new XPointer scheme. - Rename the schemes to use a "wsdl." prefix to distinguish them visually from other fragment schemes and reduce the possibility of name clashes. Nothing precludes a client from processing one of our schemes (as an extension) on resources served up as application/xml if they so desire - that's a result of making it explicit that we're defining a new XPointer scheme. Most XML-specific clients will simply ignore the unrecognized XPointer schemes. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC6d > > > - 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 > > > > Not yet resolved. > > > > [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC6c] > -- > Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ > W3C/ERCIM > mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 23:34:31 UTC