There
was a lengthy discussion about requiring the xml:lang attribute for names during
V3 development and the V3 authors consciously decided to specify it as being
optional. Names like "SAP" simply don't have an associated language. See section
3.3.2.3 of the V3 specification for more details. Also, using statically defined
or out-of-band negotiated default values can invalidate digital
signatures.
A
different thing are descriptions. I tend to agree that descriptive text always
has an associated language and believe that the V3 authors also wanted to
specify this. Interestingly, the V3 specification (section 3.3.2.4) and the V3
API schema are in sync and BOTH specify the xml:lang attribute as being optional
for descriptions. This is true since not specifying the use attribute for
attribute declarations (as is done for xml:lang within the description element)
results in an optional attribute (see XML Schema specification at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cAttribute_Declarations).
In
case we were trying to make xml:lang mandatory within descriptions, we
would have a problem for migrating data from V2 to V3 (xml:lang is also optional
in V2). Which language should be applied to those descriptions that don't carry
an xml:lang value? Maybe this was the reason why xml:lang is still specified as
being optional in V3.
Regards,
Claus
I do not see how we can have a default value without providing a way
for the client to find out what it is. A publisher may have a different
idea of what the default value is than the inquirer, which means that an
out-of-band implied agreement must exist between all users of a
registry. A node, on the other hand, is not involved in the
interpretation of content (is it?), so it is not a party to such
agreement. A node may be used though to establish the agreement between
users by publishing a special "default language" descriptor in the node
businessEntity. It could be either in the businessEntity's categoryBag
or down at the service level to allow for multiple different default languages
on multiple services or endpoints, if that's a realistic requirement.
Sounds like TN material?
Replication
also complicates things somewhat...
My opinion is that it would be worthwhile to
make xml:lang mandatory everywhere. This would
eliminate the need for users to agree on a default. If the registry is
used by more than one language community, it would be very difficult to
establish and meaningfully enforce a default language.
Daniel
My reading of the standard suggested that it was optional,
and that its omission indicated that the text was in the "default" language,
not that the idea of default language is adequately described - is it
default for the node, or default for the user?
It used to be that only one entry could use any given xml:lang value
(including default), but that restriction has been eased in V3. As I see it,
any number of entries could be coded to the default, so optional seems a
valid way of indicating this.
I'd be in favour of drawing it into line with the treatment of xml:lang
for names - the two are analogous, as I see it.
Tony Rogers
-----Original Message----- From: Tom Bellwood
[mailto:bellwood@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thu 19/06/2003 9:12
To: Luc Clement Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the
description element
Yes, the xml:lang is optional everywhere else but for
descriptions. I agree we weren't consistent in its
treatment. I also seem to recall that it was intentionally
left as required here because descriptions are intended to be human
readable text and having the xml:lang can be important for such
uses. We should consider if this line of reasoning is
important before making it optional I think.
Other
opinions? Someone with a different recollection than mine
here?
Thanks, Tom Bellwood
Phone: (512) 838-9957 (external); TL:
678/9957 (internal) Co-Chair, OASIS UDDI Specification TC STSM -
Emerging Technologies IBM Corporation
"Luc Clement"
<lclement@windows.microsoft.com> on 06/18/2003 01:39:47
PM
To:
<uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject:
[uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the
description
element
Tom / TC,
Please note that the http://uddi.org/schema/uddi_v3.xsd
schema omits use="optional" on the description element. I think this
is an omission and recommend we correct this definition as part
of CR-002. The current schema is declared
as:
<xsd:elementname="description"type="uddi:description"final="restriction"/>
<xsd:complexTypename="description"final="restriction">
<xsd:simpleContent>
<xsd:extensionbase="uddi:validationTypeString255">
<xsd:attributeref="xml:lang"/>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
... when I think we should have it
declared
as:
<xsd:elementname="description"type="uddi:description"final="restriction"/>
<xsd:complexTypename="description"final="restriction">
<xsd:simpleContent>
<xsd:extensionbase="uddi:validationTypeString255">
<xsd:attributeref="xml:lang"use="optional"/>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
For your
consideration.
Luc
Luc Clément Microsoft
You may
leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php
You
may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php
|