PWG Mail Archive: PWG> RE: SM> Interface / Document revis

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

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

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "PWG> PWG Process Draft"

    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@pwg.org'; 'pwg@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@pwg.org'; 'pwg@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@hp.com]
    > > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:26 AM
    > > To: 'sm@pwg.org'; 'pwg@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>>
    > >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 18:15:12 EST