Re: issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using ncnames?

I also think that given the operation names have to be unique in a given
document ( aside: should that really be 'targetNamespace' ) then we really
do have another symbol space for operations alongside those for messages,
portTypes and bindings.

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using
ncnames?


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>
> To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:51 PM
> Subject: Re: issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using
> ncnames?
>
>
> >
> > Martin,
> >
> > There is no requirement that operation names be unique within a
> > targetNamespace.
>
> I know.
>
> > That means that you can only specify an operation *within*
> > a portType,
>
> I know that too.
>
> > and that an NCName is sufficient for that.
> > What would be then
> > the benefit  of namespace qualifying the operation name?
>
> That all references in WSDL would be consistent. Consistency is good.
>
> Gudge
>
> >
> > Paco
> >
> >
> >
> > "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>@w3.org on 04/16/2002
> 08:40:27
> > AM
> >
> > Sent by:    www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> >
> >
> > To:    <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > cc:
> > Subject:    Re: issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using
> >        ncnames?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ahhh, if only default namespace decls didn't exist, we wouldn't have
this
> > confusion...
> >
> > Names in the XML 1.0 + Namespaces in XML world are either qualified or
> > unqualified. Whether a name is qualified or unqualified is largely
> > orthogonal to whether it is prefixed or unprefixed. I say largely
because
> a
> > prefixed name is always a qualified name.
> >
> > All references in WSDL SHOULD be QNames. Unfortunately certain
references
> > in
> > WSDL are not QNames ( e.g. mapping between operations in a binding and
> > operations in a portType ). I know that the reference from binding to
the
> > portType is by QName, it just seems weird that the mapping of operations
> is
> > by local name.
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
> > To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:55 AM
> > Subject: Re: issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using
> > ncnames?
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 06:56:22 -0400, in soap you wrote:
> > >
> > > >>"Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > >> >Yes, the references across NSs always have to be QNames. I believe
> > > >> >telling whether a name is a QName or an NCName is simple- just see
> > > >> >whether there's a colon or not.
> > > >>
> > > >> but an unprefixed value, is still a valid QName.
> > > >
> > > >Isn't it a QName with a null namespace URI? Is there a difference
> > > >between that and an NCName??
> > >
> > > No, its a QName with a null prefix. the namespace URI will depend on
> > > whatever the default namespace is at that scope.
> > >
> > > >> It sounds to me like its just making it more complex, not less.
Stick
> > > >> with QNames and make it clearer in the prose.
> > > >
> > > >That would be my own personal preference too!
> > > >
> > > >Sanjiva.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 06:46:36 UTC