- From: Fabian Ritzmann <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:58:29 +0200
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
I support the removal of identifiers for element declarations and type definitions. They don't seem to add any value and introduce unnecessary complications. Fabian David Orchard wrote: > There was never agreement to remove them. We agreed that we would > provide a document that faithfully captured identifiers for all WSDL > 1.1 elements and then scope the policy attachment using wsdl 1.1 EIs > to just the subjects defined by ws-policy. > Cheers, > Dave > > *From:* Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:51 PM > *To:* Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org > *Cc:* David Orchard > *Subject:* RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 > > I have the recollection of agreeing NOT to include element/type > decls. Thus, I am somewhat confused as to why we still have them > in the document. > Shortly, +1 to remove them. > --umit > > *From:* public-ws-policy-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Ashok > Malhotra > *Sent:* Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 3:38 PM > *To:* public-ws-policy@w3.org > *Cc:* dorchard@bea.com > *Subject:* RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 > > I do not see a usecase for referring to element declarations > and type definitions in a WSDL 1.1 document from outside the > document. > > So, I’m happy to see them removed. > > DaveO, perhaps you had a reason for including these? If so, > pray tell. > > All the best, Ashok > > * From: * public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto: > public-ws-policy-request@w3.org ] *On Behalf Of *Paul Cotton > *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:09 PM > *To:* public-ws-policy@w3.org > *Subject:* Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4332 > > The inclusion of identifiers for element declarations and type > definitions (which are not WSDL 1.1 elements) seems > inappropriate in this spec. The presence of schema imports and > includes makes associating type definitions with a particular > WSDL document, and thus with a particular targetNamespace, > problematic. These identifiers don’t seem to be required by > WS-Policy Attachment. We recommend removing them. If these > identifiers remain, a number of issues related to them should > be addressed, including: > > a. How imports and includes affect them. Are only in-lined > schema elements considered? Only elements in a schema > targetNamespace that is the same as the WSDL targetNamespace? > If not, which ones? > > b. Clarification in the prose of the spec that WSDL element > identifiers identify elements both in the WSDL and Schema > namespaces. > > c. Correction of the “types” vs. “type definitions” issue, > described at [1]. > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0002.html > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > 17 Eleanor Drive , Ottawa , Ontario K2E 6A3 > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com > > > * From: * public-ws-policy-comments-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-policy-comments-request@w3.org] *On Behalf > Of *Jonathan Marsh > *Sent:* February 15, 2007 9:46 PM > *To:* public-ws-policy-comments@w3.org > *Cc:* www-ws-desc@w3.org > *Subject:* WSDL WG Comments on WSDL 1.1 Element Identifiers > > Follows are some comments from the WSDL WG on the WSDL 1.1 > Element Identifiers draft. > > 1. As in WSDL 2.0 component designators, this spec recommends > the creation of an identifier from the targetNamespace of the > WSDL 1.1 document, and that this identifier can be resolved > without considering imports and includes. Unlike WSDL 2.0, in > WSDL 1.1 the targetNamespace is not required, and although > there is no wsdl11:include, we have some evidence that some > customers have used multiple wsdl11:imports of the same > namespace (which can be the same as the targetNamespace) and > different locations to modularlize their documents – and that > a number of popular tools actually support this “abuse” of > import. These situations demonstrate the limits of the > assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between a WSDL 1.1 document > and a WSDL 1.1 targetNamespace. The spec’s recommendation to > construct an identifier using the targetNamespace doesn’t work > in these situations. The spec should at least note situations > (edge cases) which conflict with the advice about creation of > an element identifier from the targetNamespace. > > 2. The inclusion of identifiers for element declarations and > type definitions (which are not WSDL 1.1 elements) seems > inappropriate in this spec. The presence of schema imports and > includes makes associating type definitions with a particular > WSDL document, and thus with a particular targetNamespace, > problematic. These identifiers don’t seem to be required by > WS-Policy Attachment. We recommend removing them. If these > identifiers remain, a number of issues related to them should > be addressed, including: > > d. How imports and includes affect them. Are only in-lined > schema elements considered? Only elements in a schema > targetNamespace that is the same as the WSDL targetNamespace? > If not, which ones? > > e. Clarification in the prose of the spec that WSDL element > identifiers identify elements both in the WSDL and Schema > namespaces. > > f. Correction of the “types” vs. “type definitions” issue, > described at [1]. > > Thank you. > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0002.html > > ** Jonathan Marsh ** - http://www.wso2.com - > http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com >
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 09:58:42 UTC