- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:09:18 -0500
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org, public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 16:51 -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote: > > Dan, > > There are two cases we need to consider when forming URI references. > > 1. The URI deferences to a WSDL document whose media type is > application/wsdl+xml > 2. The URI is a WSDL namespace and we are forming identifiers for > components. > > I'm not an XPointer lawyer, but in case 1 I don't see how we can > change the meaning of the bare names. Doesn't that violate the > XPointer spec? > > Is application/wsdl+xml allowed to redefine the meaning of XPointer > for application/xml? It's not a matter of redefining. You can choose whether and to what extent the media type definition of application/wsdl+xml inherits from XPointer. I don't have any requirements for you to use XPointer at all. I do have a requirement that you don't use XPointer's barename definition. > In case 2 we have more leeway because the URI reference is being used > as a component identifier and the namespace is not being referenced. > I don't understand what you mean by that. Whatever you get by dereferencing a URI should agree with other specifications about that URI. > > In this case would could define bare names to mean whatever we want. > So we could define a bare name to identify the WSDL component with > that local name, assuming it was unique. > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 21:09:27 UTC