- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:34:49 +0100
- To: <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
- Cc: <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Anish! I'm puzzled why Jonathan's proposal is an problem from the "tooling perspective". Surely all that is being required of a component model implementation is that it's able to support a superset of XML 1.0 and 1.1 character set. This remains a subset of the character representation used internally in most programming environments. So the value is that a WSDL 2.0 component model can theoretically process XML 1.1 document without requiring a spec-rev all for little practical cost. AIUI the risk is that a component model may now legitimately contain element names containing characters which cannot be serialised to an XML 1.0 document - but that's nothing new given XML 1.1 document aren't compatible with XML 1.0 processors. Paul -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar Sent: 08 July 2004 09:18 To: Umit Yalcinalp Cc: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Re: Issue 177: XML 1.1 support The proposal seems to future proof WSDL for possible new versions of XML, which is a good thing, but it applies only to XML 1.1 and not beyond. In addition, till XML schema supports XML 1.1, the message reference component can only describe XML 1.0 messages. Is that correct? If that is so, then it seems to me that creating new types to support XML 1.1 will be of limited value, especially from tooling perspective. Is there any reason not to rev WSDL when XML schema supports 1.1? Has the WG considered a resolution similar to the resolution of issue 20rec [1] in XMLP WG? -Anish -- [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x20
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 10:34:51 UTC