- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 01:13:25 +0600
- To: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Wow, so much traffic on this topic .. I'm not sure where to start! ;-) Let me give my current preferred positions for these two issues: Yes, definitely clarify the existing import mechanism and explain it very carefully. No, do not add an <include> mechanism. There are several XML level mechanisms for inclusion (entities, XInclude and others I probably don't know about) already. Furthermore, most programming languages have survived quite well with only one include/import mechanism (Java, C++, C#, C, ...) and hence I don't see the need to have two mechanisms in WSDL. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:35 PM Subject: import / include issue > Now that the other issues seem to have died down, I'd like to start > on the following two issues: > > <issue id="issue-clarify-import"> > <head>Clarify semantics of import.</head> > We have run into many, many people who appear to be confused > about how import is supposed to work. The notion that it only > establishes a relationship between a namespace and a location > is quite hard to grasp it appears. Specifically, the fact that > nothing is said about what one may find about the namespace at > that location appears to be very confusing. We need to clarify > the intended semantics at the minimum. > <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source> > </issue> > > <issue id="issue-add-include"> > <head>Should we add an "include" mechanism?</head> > It appears that most users who use <import> really > treat it as an include mechanism. Should we bite the bullet > and have both import and include mechanisms similar to XSLT? > <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source> > </issue> > > Please provide your input on how these should be resolved! > > Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 15:16:30 UTC