RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?

I think I agree with what I take to be Jacek's position.  2.1.1 is fine is 
written prior to this discussion.  Edge names >are< Qnames in the model, 
therefore cannot raise the problem of being difficult to serialize.

Now, in the case of RPC the situation is different.  There we explicitly 
state that our purpose is to provide a means of representing method names 
and named arguments that often originate in some (unspecified) external 
system.  It is those external method and argument names that potentially 
violate the rules of a QName, therefore I think it's appropriate that the 
reference to appendix B go in the RPC section.  I am fairly strongly 
opposed to putting it in 2.1.1, as that seems incoherent (for the reason 
above).

Regarding MAY vs. MUST, I think the answer might be SHOULD.

<existing 4.2.1>
The invocation is represented by a single struct or array containing an 
outbound edge for each [in] or [in/out] parameter. The struct or array is 
named identically to the procedure or method name (see B. Mapping 
Application Defined Names to XML Names).

Each outbound edge either has a label corresponding to the name of the 
parameter (see B. Mapping Application Defined Names to XML Names) or a 
position corresponding to the position of the parameter.
</existing 4.2.1>
<proposed>
The invocation is represented by a single struct or array containing an 
outbound edge for each [in] or [in/out] parameter. The struct or array is 
named identically to the procedure or method name (the conventions of B. 
Mapping Application Defined Names to XML Names SHOULD be used to represent 
method names that are not legal XML names.).

Each outbound edge either has a label corresponding to the name of the 
parameter (the conventions of B. Mapping Application Defined Names to XML 
Names SHOULD be used to represent parameter names that are not legal XML 
names) or a position corresponding to the position of the parameter.
</proposed>

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
09/04/2002 03:58 PM

 
        To:     "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
        cc:     "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, 
(bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?



OK, I can live with it in 2.1.1, so let's go with that

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
> Sent: 04 September 2002 20:39
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
> 
> 
>  Gudge,
>  since 2.1.1 does say an edge name is a QName, there will be 
> no mapping issues in the Encoding because it also uses 
> QNames. Either we remove the mention of XML Schema Qualified 
> Name from 2.1.1 and put the reference to Appendix B into 
> Encoding, or we put the reference to 2.1.1 because that's 
> where the recoding issues come up.
> 
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 21:34, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > Jacek,
> > 
> > Henrik originally suggested that the text go in 2.1.1, I disagreed
> with him, because the Data Model says NOTHING about an 
> encoding. And Appendix B ( ne้ A )really is an encoding.
> > 
> > Gudge
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 19:07:54 UTC