RE: 6.7.1.1 Construction of the request IRI using the http location

Thank you for this comment.  The Working Group this issue as a CR116 [1]. 

The latest editor's draft [2] clarifies the handling of repeated elements,
and of elements missing in the instance data.

Unless you let us know otherwise within 2 weeks, we will assume you agree
with the resolution of this issue.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR116
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#_http_operation_location_cited_ser


Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Philippe Le Hegaret
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:51 AM
> To: www-ws-desc
> Subject: 6.7.1.1 Construction of the request IRI using the http location
> 
> 
> Given this instance data:
>  <root>
>    <foo>1</foo>
>    <foo>2</foo>
>  </root>
> 
> With http:location="t"
> we should obtain "t?foo=1&foo=2"
> 
> With http:location="t/{foo}"
> we should obtain "t/1?foo=2"
> 
> With http:location="t/{foo}/{foo}"
> we should obtain "t/1/2"
> 
> With http:location="t/{foo}/{foo}/{foo}"
> should we obtain an error (we don't have 3 foo elements in the instance
> data) or, should we obtain "t/1/2/1" or "t/1/2/2" ?
> 
> As a side comment, using element names in the http:location adds an
> additional message schema constraint, in addition to the ones already
> defined the IRI style: those element names shouldn't be optional. If one
> of those http:location element names is defined as optional in the
> schema, not including it in the instance data could result in a runtime
> error.
> 
> Philippe
>

Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 23:55:47 UTC