Re: unclarity in adjuncts 5.9.6 - soap header block component fragid

Jacek,

per Jonathan's message at
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Jun/0001.html

I changed the draft as you requested.

Check:

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#soap-headers-decl-fragid



Philippe



On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 18:58 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> first, it's funny how the editors' drafts say Proposed Recommendation 21
> March 2007, all the jazz with status of the doc etc.

fixed :)


> I don't see a bug in our Bugzilla or that the spec would be clarified on
> an editorial issue I sent earlier, so I'm resending it. It seems that
> Arthur agrees the intention is A), so here's a proposed text for the
> spec:
> 
> adjuncts, 5.9.6:
> update the bullets like this:
> 
>      1. parent is the "wsdl.*" pointer part of the {parent} component,
>         as specified in WSDL Version 2.0 Part 1: Core Language, i.e.
>         without the xmlns() pointer parts. 
>      2. element declaration is the value of the {name} property of the
>         Element Declaration component that is referred to by the
>         {element declaration} property of the SOAP Header Block
>         component. 
> 
> I believe this will clarify the ambiguity.
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 20:11 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > finishing the implementation of the RDF mapping, I uncovered one more
> > small problem in the spec, this time in the adjuncts. 
> > 
> > Section 5.9.6 defines the fragment ID for a SOAP header block component.
> > It says:
> > 
> > wsdl.extension(http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap, 
> >         wsoap.header(parent/element declaration))
> > 
> >      1. parent is the pointer part of the {parent} component, as
> >         specified in WSDL Version 2.0 Part 1: Core Language.
> >      2. element declaration is the value of the {element declaration}
> >         property.
> > 
> > First, I expect that the "pointer part of the {parent} component" means
> > the wsdl.* xpointer part of the fragment identifier of the {parent}
> > component, without any xmlns parts which are moved before the
> > wsdl.extension part, right?
> > 
> > Second, point two needs to be clarified to say either that "element
> > declaration" is the QName that is the value of the {name} property of
> > the component that is the value of the {element declaration} property,
> > or that "element declaration" is the wsdl.elementDeclaration part of the
> > fragment identifier of the component referred to by the {element
> > declaration} property.
> > 
> > In other words, which is correct? I think A). I hope the formatting
> > survives in a useful form.
> > 
> > A.
> > xmlns(ns1=http://othernamespace.example/)
> > xmlns(ns2=http://schemanamespace.example/)
> > wsdl.extension(http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap,
> >                wsoap.header(wsdl.bindingFault(bindingname/ns1:faultname)
> >                             /ns2:element))
> > 
> > B.
> > xmlns(ns1=http://schemanamespace.example/)
> > wsdl.extension(http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap,
> >                wsoap.header(xmlns(ns1=http://othernamespace.example/)
> >                             wsdl.bindingFault(bindingname/ns1:faultname)
> >                             /ns1:element))
> > 
> > C.
> > xmlns(ns1=http://othernamespace.example/)
> > xmlns(ns2=http://schemanamespace.example/)
> > wsdl.extension(http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap,
> >                wsoap.header(wsdl.bindingFault(bindingname/ns1:faultname)
> >                             /wsdl.elementDeclaration(ns2:element)))
> > 
> > D.
> > xmlns(ns1=http://schemanamespace.example/)
> > wsdl.extension(http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/soap,
> >                wsoap.header(xmlns(ns1=http://othernamespace.example/)
> >                             wsdl.bindingFault(bindingname/ns1:faultname)
> >                             /wsdl.elementDeclaration(ns1:element)))
> > 
> > 
> > Since I'm asking for clarification, I believe it can be handled as
> > editorial, or it can be handled as errata, but I'd like to have an
> > answer before we go to Rec. 8-)
> > 
> > Jacek
>

Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 21:50:30 UTC