RE: Usage of wsu:Id and xml:id in the WS Policy XML Schema

>where would you put that? At /2006/11/ws-policy.xsd ?

That sounds good.

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:10 AM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: Usage of wsu:Id and xml:id in the WS Policy XML Schema

On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 14:13 -0800, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> Felix, thank you for catching this XML Schema validation issue. Our
> preference is c).
> 
> > The XML Schema document for the WS-Policy LC WD is not yet 
> > updated.

You are right, I will do that after the WG has resolved this issue. I
don't see any dissent in this thread and only want to wait until the
next call.

> 
> In addition to the XML Schema document, WG should update the Web
> Services Policy Namespace document [1]:
> 
> a) Update the framework and attachment draft URIs
> b) Add a dated version of the XML Schema document for the Last Call
> drafts

where would you put that? At /2006/11/ws-policy.xsd ?

> c) Update the 'Stability of this namespace URI' section with modified
> content from the framework doc [2] (modified content is related to
issue
> 3617 [3]).

thanks for catching this, will be updated.

> 
> We noticed that readers have to jump through the hoops to locate the
> editors' and published version of the XML Schema documents. To
encourage
> early review of the XML Schema and Namespace documents, we suggest
> updating the WG homepage to include URIs to these deliverables (see
the
> attached HTML document).

good suggestions, I will make that change.

Felix

> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/ws-policy/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-20061117/#XML_Namespaces 
> [3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3617
> 
> Regards,
>  
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:12 AM
> To: fsasaki@w3.org; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Usage of wsu:Id and xml:id in the WS Policy XML Schema
> 
> 
> Option B is awful.
> Option A is bad.
> Option C is somewhat bad, and the best solution.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 4:16 AM
> > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: Usage of wsu:Id and xml:id in the WS Policy XML Schema
> > 
> > 
> > This mail is based on some offline conversation between Asir, 
> > Chris, Paul and me.
> > 
> > The XML Schema document for the WS-Policy LC WD is not yet 
> > updated. The reason is that the latest revision
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy.x
> > sd?rev=1.6
> > has a problem with the schema update for the resolution for 
> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3560 (enable 
> > the usage of
> > xml:id):
> >  
> > If you use xml:id at the <Policy element> in an instance with 
> > the current schema, you will get an error. You can't use 
> > xml:id, typed as an ID, on an element which has an ID 
> > attribute (like wsu:Id) specifically declared for it.
> > 
> > There are three solutions for the problem:
> >   a) publish two flavors of the schema, one with xml:id, one 
> > with wsu:Id
> >   b) declare two subtypes which are accessible via xsi:type:
> > <Policy ... xsi:type="xid-flavor" xml:id="boo" ...> versus <Policy
...
> >   xsi:type="wsu-flavor" wsu:id="boo" ...>
> >   c) delete the explicit reference to <xs:attribute ref="wsu:Id"/> .
> > This would make both xml:id and wsu:Id extensibility points.
> >   
> > I have a high preference for c), including a note in the WD 
> > to warn schema users (don't use other ID attributes than 
> > these two), to avoid the confusion created by deleting the 
> > explicit reference to <xs:attribute ref="wsu:Id"/>.
> > 
> > I have not opened an issue on this and not reopened 3560, 
> > since the normative text has precedence over the schema 
> > anyway. Hopefully we can resolve this without a LC issue.
> > 
> > Felix
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 15:48:34 UTC