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

Hello Jonathan,

For the record, I'm also personally satisfied with your WGs decision.
I think the considerations about layering are appropriate.
I'd personally preferred to solve the "space and friends" issue
with a pattern facet to the relevant elements (which wouldn't
create layering issues at all), but the "For interoperability"
note is fine with me, too.

Regards,    Martin.

At 13:23 05/11/15, Felix Sasaki wrote:
 >
 >Dear Jonathan, dear all,
 >
 >Thank you very much for your mail. I am personally satisfied with your
 >changes. If you don't hear anything else from the i18n core wg within the
 >next 10 days from the i18n core wg, please regard these issues as closed
 >(as you proposed).
 >
 >Best regards, Felix.
 >
 >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:45:39 +0900, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
 >wrote:
 >
 >>
 >> Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked these
 >> issues as Last Call comments LC356 [1], LC357 [2], and LC358 [3]
 >> respectively.
 >>
 >> LC356: In sec. 2.1.2 you write: "The value of the targetNamespace
 >> attribute
 >>   information item SHOULD be a dereferenceable IRI (see [IETF RFC
 >> 3987])."
 >>   In sec. 2.1.2.1 you write: "The type of the targetNamespace attribute
 >>   information item is xs:anyURI. Its value MUST be an absolute IRI (see
 >>   [IETF RFC 3987])." Why do you have a SHOULD vs. a MUST? If the SHOULD
 >> is
 >>   because of "dereferencable", I would propose: "The value of the
 >>   targetNamespace attribute information item MUST be an IRI (see [IETF
 >> RFC
 >>   3987]) and SHOULD be dereferenceable."
 >>
 >> We agreed to make the change as you suggest.
 >>
 >> LC357: In Core: On reference of xs:anyURI: 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.
 >>
 >> There was some dismay at the prospect of requiring additional mapping
 >> code in every spec that uses IRI and describes it as xs:anyURI.
 >> Mismatches between specs would hinder interop and make implementation
 >> more difficult. We're concerned about specifying the behavior of layers
 >> beneath WSDL at the WSDL layer.  We propose to raise this issue at the
 >> CG.  We did however agree to add the following note:
 >>   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. For interoperability,
 >> WSDL
 >>   authors are advised to avoid the characters "<", ">", '"', space, "{",
 >>   "}", "|", "\", "^", and "`", which are allowed by the xs:anyURI type
 >> but
 >>   disallowed in IRIs.
 >>
 >> LC358: Core sec. C.2, Binding sec. 2.4 Some examples need better
 >> formatting.
 >>
 >> We directed the editors to format the examples better.
 >>
 >> As we plan to go to CR shortly, if we don't hear from you within 10
 >> days, we will assume this satisfies your concern.
 >>
 >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC356
 >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC357
 >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC358
 >>
 >> -----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 Wednesday, 16 November 2005 09:55:21 UTC