RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0

Jonathan,

We don't have any test cases for the frag ids yet. However, if we do add 
them, I don't think this implies we test Dan's proposal since it is very 
problematic and not part of the spec.

Isn't it the case that if users want to use simple fragment ids, they can 
add an attribute of type ID to the element they want to reference? That is 
allowed by the WSDL 2.0 schema. Wouldn't that we the correct normative 
interpretation? The XPointer Framework calls these shorthand pointers [1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/#shorthand

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
09/13/2005 05:23 PM

To
"Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
cc
<public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>, "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, 
"Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Subject
RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0







Since component designators aren't used internally by WSDL I would guess
we would not conduct tests of them, indeed I'm not sure what that would
mean.  But the WG hasn't discussed this yet.  I'll try to bring it up
when we move to CR.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:17 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org; Bijan Parsia; Henry S. Thompson
> Subject: RE: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0
> 
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:49 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Would you be satisfied with adding a note along the lines of the
> > following:
> >
> > "Note that the component designators given below are only one form
> of
> > identifier for WSDL components.  Other forms can be used.  For
> instance,
> > using targetNamespace#name is sufficient when out-of-band mechanisms
> can
> > be relied on to ensure no names are the same (across all symbol
> spaces)
> > within a WSDL component model.  Such a mechanism cannot be relied
> for
> > general purpose use as is the one defined below."
> 
> Yes, that's pretty much what I have in mind.
> 
> That's not completely clear that targetNamespace#name has the
> same normative status as the other format, but I'm not inspired
> with better words.
> 
> Do you have plans to do tests for component designators? I'd
> be satisfied to see targetNamespace#name right next to the
> others in a test suite.
> 
> > Trying to cast this as a concrete initial proposal the WG could
> > deliberate...
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E