- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:00:00 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 16:09:24 UTC
Jacek, 1) I agree this should be added to tighten up the spec for canonical form. I'll wait for Jonathan to reply before I change it. 2) Yes, that's a typo. I'll fix it immediately. Arthur Ryman, PhD, AoT, DE Process and Portfolio Management, Rational Division phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-3831 (T/L: 318-8867) fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 04/25/2007 11:19 AM To WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org> cc Subject small problems in part 1 appendix C Hi all, implementing the RDF mapping, I'm also implementing the creation of the fragment identifiers and I found the following small (maybe editorial) problems in Appendix C: 1) the canonical form does not say that no xmlns() pointer part should define the namespace same as the namespace of the WSDL 2.0 document, so it doesn't seem that the following would be uncanonical, while it should be: http://example.com/wsdl# xmlns(ns1=http://example.com/wsdl#) wsdl.interfaceFaultReference(iface/op/In/ns1:Foo) 2) example c-2 has a typo, it declares namespace prefix ns1 but uses xsTicketAgent in the fifth IRI Jacek
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 16:09:24 UTC