This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 17234 - Typos around Dialect in MEX
Summary: Typos around Dialect in MEX
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: WS-Resource Access
Classification: Unclassified
Component: MetadataExchange (show other bugs)
Version: PR
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: notifications mailing list for WS Resource Access
QA Contact: notifications mailing list for WS Resource Access
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-05-29 15:11 UTC by Doug Davis
Modified: 2012-05-31 00:14 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
proposal 1 (366.00 KB, application/msword)
2012-05-31 00:14 UTC, Doug Davis
Details

Description Doug Davis 2012-05-29 15:11:16 UTC
(from poehlsen at itm.uni-luebeck.de )
Hello,

as far as I discovered, the dialect is a mex:QNameSerialization instead
of a xs:Qname as before.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access-notifications/2011Feb/0138.html
Are there any information available, why this was changed?

Since "Normative text within this specification takes precedence over
the XML Schema and WSDL descriptions, which in turn take precedence
over outlines, which in turn take precedence over examples." it is
quite difficult to see what seems to be right.

Especially since the serialization algorithm is only provided as a
"note" (non-normative text?) within the spec. (In the description of
the dialect attribute /mex:Metadata/mex:MetadataSection/@Dialect a
_note_ says that "the QName is serialized as
{namespace-uri}localName."
In the XML Schema exists only a regex: <xs:pattern value='\{.*\}.+'/>
In the outline in section 4 the dialect is a 'xs:Qname'
http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-metadata-exchange/#web-services-metadata

If the note is applicable Example 2-4 line 21, 27, and 34 have an
incorrect Qname serialization. It must be a QNameSerialization, same
with Example 2-6 line 19.


There is another bug:
Example 2-4 line 21 lacks an identifier. Now it is required in contrast
to the submission version of the spec.


Kind regards,
Stephan
Comment 1 Doug Davis 2012-05-31 00:14:03 UTC
Created attachment 1137 [details]
proposal 1