PWG> RE: SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft

PWG> RE: SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft

PWG> RE: SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft

TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) bobt at hp.com
Wed Feb 12 18:14:57 EST 2003


The whole string (<namespace>/<interfacename>/<interfaceversion>) is really
the namespace in XML - the www.pwg.org part is just a "root".

Thinking about how we'll organize hosting the schemas/WSDL, it seems more
natural to do:

<namespaceroot>/<interfacename>/<interfaceversion>

That way I find the interface, then the version I want.  If you do it
like: 

<namespaceroot>/<interfaceversion>/<interfacename>

You go to the version/date to find the interface, which feels really
unnatural.

bt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: HALL,DAVID (HP-Vancouver,ex1) 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:10 PM
> To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1); 'sm at pwg.org'; 'pwg at pwg.org'
> Subject: RE: SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft
> 
> 
> One reason that I can think of is that I think of the version 
> as part of the namespace, and the "foo" to be the interface name.
> 
> <namespace>/<interfacename>
> 
> Hence
> 
> http://www.pwg.org/ps/2003/02/12/JobControlInterface
> 
> The flip side of the argument is that the namespace is:  
> http://www.pwg.org/ps, and the interface is 
> JobControlInterface/2003/02/12
> 
> Giving us:
> 
> <namespace>/<interfacename>/<interfaceversion>
> 
> I'm not sure what the right answer is..
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:35 PM
> To: HALL,DAVID (HP-Vancouver,ex1); 'sm at pwg.org'; 'pwg at pwg.org'
> Subject: RE: SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> One question on this since I missed last week's meeting.  
> When we're actually
> declaring namespaces, the recommendation appeared to be of the style:
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/2002/04/foo
> 
> We are right now doing the following:
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/foo/2002/04/
> 
> I.e., pretty much the same model, but put the version/date 
> after the service
> declaration rather than in the middle of it.  I think this 
> makes more sense - was
> there a specific reason to put the version/date in the middle 
> instead of on 
> the end?
> 
> bt
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HALL,DAVID (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:dhall at hp.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:26 AM
> > To: 'sm at pwg.org'; 'pwg at pwg.org'
> > Subject: SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft
> > 
> > 
> > Hey All..
> > 
> > Attached are the notes from Tuesdays PSI meeting..  I 
> > apologize for the late
> > publication, but I've been absolutely swamped since Tuesday!
> > 
> > Keep in mind that this is a work in progress...
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> >  <<Spec Stuff.doc>> 
> > 
> 



More information about the Pwg mailing list