RE: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding) from the i18n core wg

Wonderful, thanks. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll put this proposal before the WG.

-----Original Message-----
From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison.phillips@quest.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:31 AM
To: Jonathan Marsh; Martin Duerst; Felix Sasaki; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Subject: RE: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding) from the i18n core wg

Hi Jonathan/WSDL-WG,

This is a personal response. I hope that the WG can address this next week and send you an official response.

The differences are actually quite simple. XLink 1.0 uses almost exactly the same text as IRI Section 3.1 Step 2. It omits Step 1.

Step 1 consists of three things.

1a. covers when you transcribe an IRI into a digital form from a non-digital form (e.g. when you type in the IRI you wrote down on a napkin earlier). This can't apply to WSDL, of course, unless the WSDL starts to be printed on the sides of buses or the backs of envelopes :-).

1b. covers conversion from a "legacy" (non-Unicode) encoding to a Unicode encoding and requires normalizing the text using Unicode Normalization Form C. Since WSDL is defining an XML document, which is defined as a sequence of Unicode characters, this is really a consideration for the XML processor, I believe, rather than something WSDL itself needs to address.

1c. is basically a no-op: it covers normalization of IRIs already in a Unicode encoding (you don't normalize if the IRI is already in Unicode).

So the difference is the application of (1b) when the document is encoded using a non-Unicode encoding, something that probably doesn't apply to WSDL directly anyway: it is something that happens at the XML processor level, XML documents being a sequence of Unicode characters...

In any case, I agree with Martin. I would suggest text more like the following instead:

--
Note: The xs:anyURI type is defined so that xs:anyURI values are essentially IRIs [RFC 3987]. The conversion from xs:anyURI values to an actual URI is via an escaping procedure defined by [XLink 1.0], which is identical in most respects to IRI Section 3.1. (The only difference being that IRI defines handling of non-Unicode encoded byte sequences, considerations which do not affect this document directly.)
--

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: 2005年11月1日 9:59
> To: Martin Duerst; Felix Sasaki; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding) from
> the i18n core wg
> 
> 
> Do you have the differences at your fingertips or will I have to do my
> own homework? :-)  And, which do you prefer, that we list diffs or stay
> quiet? I expect the WG to adopt the I18N suggestions without much
> dissent so having a clear position from the experts is valuable.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 1:08 AM
> To: Felix Sasaki; Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding)
> from the i18n core wg
> 
> Same comment here as for XLink 1.1: I think it's not a good idea to
> use the text below (provided by Felix) as such, because it easily
> may give the impression that there are serious differences when
> the chances for differences is actually very small. So I think it's
> better to either list the differences or not say anything.
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> At 12:41 05/10/26, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>  >
>  >On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:32:11 +0900, Jonathan Marsh
> <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
>  >wrote:
>  >
>  >>
>  >> The WG had a hard time understanding your comment 3:
>  >>
>  >> "It would be good if you could mention that although xs:anyURI
> allows
>  >> for IRIs (see LC74a), the mapping from IRI to URI in xs:anyURI is
>  >> currently not defined in terms of IRI. This comment relates also for
>  >> example to the reference of xs:anyURI in sec. 2.1.2.1 and sec.
> 3.1.2.1,
>  >> and to the Adjuncts specification."
>  >>
>  >> Can you provide us with more background, or perhaps precise wording
> for
>  >> what you'd like to see?
>  >
>  >
>  >Sorry for being unclear. The problem is as follows, and this is also a
>  >proposal for some text which you might integrate as a note in WSDL
> 2.0:
>  >
>  >xs:anyURI defines a mapping from xs:anyURI values to URIs via an URI
>  >reference escaping procedure. In the current version of XML Schema 2,
> this
>  >procedure is defined in terms of XLink 1.0, and does not reply on the
>  >escaping procedure from RFC 3987 (IRI, sec. 3.1). Hence, relying on
>  >xs:anyURI might generate escaped URIs which are different from IRI
> based
>  >escaped URIs.
>  >
>  >Is that o.k. with you?
>  >
>  >Best regards,
>  >
>  >Felix
>  >
>  >>
>  >> -----Original Message-----
>  >> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
>  >> [mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix
>  >> Sasaki
>  >> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 8:54 PM
>  >> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
>  >> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
>  >> Subject: Comments on WSDL 2.0 (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding)
> from
>  >> the i18n core wg
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Dear Web Services Description Working Group,
>  >>
>  >> With this mail I am sending you i18n comments [1] on the WSDL 2.0
> WDs
>  >> (Core, Adjuncts, Soap 1.1 Binding). Since I am rather late (please
>  >> accept
>  >> my appologies), there was no time to get endorsement from the i18n
> core
>  >>
>  >> wg. So please regard these comments currently as my personal
> comments.
>  >>
>  >> I am looking forward for you feedback. Best regards,
>  >>
>  >> Felix Sasaki (team contact of the i18n core wg)
>  >>
>  >> [1] http://www.w3.org/International/2005/10/wsdl20-review.html

>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  >
>  >
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:04:07 UTC