RE: Minutes, 24 Sept 2003 WS Desc WG FTF

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: []
> On
> > Behalf Of David Orchard
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:44 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Minutes, 24 Sept 2003 WS Desc WG FTF
> > 
> > I'm confused by what happened on this.  My understanding is that the
> > WG made a decision about what it thought was the best approach for
> > component designators.  It then asked the TAG what the TAG 
> thought of
> the
> > WSDL WG's decision.  The TAG has certainly not said that 
> the WSDL WG's
> > approach is poor.  In fact, the TAG hasn't said anything.  This has
> been
> > annoying to me, but then the TAG is trying to get to Last 
> Call on the
> web
> > arch document so the rationale is reasonable.
> The idea was to see if there was another approach that was not so
> clearly broken as the approach in our draft, thus allowing us 
> to improve
> the situation while waiting for the TAG to make progress 
> (which has not
> been evident.)  After my recent XInclude experience, I think I
> understand fragment identifiers and media types better than I did
> before, which just confirms to me how broken our current approach is.
> I've been working on fragment identifier syntax and 
> applications for XML
> for several years now and the result of my experience is to 
> stay as far
> away from frag-ids as possible.

I recall that you have made this assertion before, that frag-ids and media
types are broken.  I have my own ideas on some of their problems.  But could
you elaborate on the reasoning that led you to believe that the current wsdl
approach is broken?  I again refer to 2396bis which tones down the language
around interpretations of frag-ids when the media-type is not available
which I think ameliorates some of the concerns I had had.  I obviously
request this from 2 perspectives, better understanding of WSDLs approach and
for possible discussion in the TAG.  


Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 21:19:21 UTC