RE: Editorial: Ambiguous use of the terms "include" and "import"

Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment
LC121 [1].  The Working Group referred this to the editors for
incorporation.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC121

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:35 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: dbooth@w3.org
> Subject: Editorial: Ambiguous use of the terms "include" and "import"
> 
> 
> Part 1 uses the words "include" and "import" in several places without
> being clear about whether they are referring to wsdl:include and
> wsdl:import or xs:include and xs:import.
> 
> In fact, these terms appear to be used in two different ways in the
> same
> table, in some cases referring to the wsdl: versions, and in other
> cases
> referring to the xs: versions.  For example, in the table in sec 2.1.3
> "Mapping Description's XML Representation to Component Properties"
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?co
> ntent-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_Mapping
> the entry for {type definitions} says:
> 
>          ". . . plus any imported type definitions . . .",
> 
> which (I think) is referring to xs:import, whereas the entry for
> {interfaces} says:
> 
>          ". . . plus any included or imported Interface components . .
> ."
> 
> which is referring to wsdl:include and wsdl:import.
> 
> I think it would be good to look throughout the document at how these
> terms
> are used, and disambiguate each usage, such as writing "included via
> wsdl:include" instead of simply "included".
> 
> 
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 03:44:11 UTC