RE: Proposal for R120 WSDL URI References

Chris,

the problem is that URIs were meant to be simple. Actually, this is not
the problem, the problem is that the proposal creates ugly URIs. One of
the things about URIs is that one should be able to scribbled any URI on
a napkin over lunch on a conference. 8-) So far, there was no real need
to hide any parts of URIs in tooling.

The other thing is that I feel very nervous about putting URIs inside
URIs (like in some of the XPointer examples). While it is true that
symbols used in the fragment identifier part of a URI should be
namespaced, they are already namespaced by the MIME type of the
resource. Together with the recommendation by the TAG that every XML
language have its own MIME type (being on a plane, I don't have a
reference to the particular TAG finding), URIs inside fragment
identifiers should not be necessary.

To keep things consistent and not to reinvent the wheel with every new
language, we could come up with a recommendation on how to design simple
fragment identifiers for languages that define symbols in namespaces,
rather than defining a very generic and extensible and complex framework
like XPointer.

I think understanding the 'icky' XPointer syntax is harder than coping
with possibly somewhat different approaches in different languages.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/


On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 08:00, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> Jacek,
> 
> With all due respect, -1 on this proposed approach. While I agree that
> the XPointer syntax 
> is "icky", I'd rather that we not invent something different to solve
> the same problem just because we 
> think something is "icky". In all likelihood, tooling will render the
> fragment identifiers invisible
> to the developer anywho.
> 
> Cheers,
>

Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 03:56:38 UTC