- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:01:11 +0200
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Dear all, FWIW, I like any of the option 2 variants because I believe they are closest to the original intent, and also hit the usefulness/simplicity sweet point. Best regards, Jacek On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 14:21 -0700, David Orchard wrote: > Issue LC77a [1] > > > > Proposals > - Option 1: Status quo (broken?) (DaveO) [.2] > > - Option 2: Ignore namespace prefix (DaveO) [.2] > > - Option 2a: Require unique localNames (JM) > > - Option 2b: Require single namespace > > - Option 2c: Require names to be uniquely mappable to Qnames > > - Option 3: Serialize QName (DaveO) [.2] > > - Option 4: Disallow qualified elements (Asir) [.3] > > - Option 5: Serialize namespace names (Hugo, DaveO) [.4], [.5] > > - Option 6: Ignore namespace prefix if single namespace, else > serialize with namespace name (DaveO) [.6] > > > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC77a > > [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0005.html > > [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0032.html > > [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0050.html > > [.5] > http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/04/29/binding_qnames_to_uris > > [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0141.html > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 14:01:35 UTC