Re: [wsrm] [editorial] change of element names

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

It seems to me that this discussion seems to be missing the point about 
namespaces. The prefix is irrelevant (as far as WSRM is concerned) and 
just a convenient shortcut. The same applies for default namespaces. One 
cannot consider just the localname of the header, it is defined in a 
namespace and irrespective of what the prefix (or default) name is, one 
has to consider the namespace name along with the localname.

For example, SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 both use Envelope localname, but different 
namespaces. One would never ever (atleast in XML land) be confused about 
exactly which SOAP version is being used because of the namespace.

[disclaimer: personally I don't have an opinion about what the header 
should be named.]

HTH.

-Anish
--

Jacques Durand wrote:

> I think Sunil has a point: the qualifier name (prefix "alias") is not 
> normative,
> only the namespace is. E.g. not only we can't prevent some other SOAP 
> headers
> to be called "Request", but we can't prevent someone from using the 
> "wsrm" prefix
> to resolve to another namespace. That would be quite confusing to readers
> (if not to processors). I am in favor of this renaming.
> 
> Jacques
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sunil Kunisetty [mailto:sunil.kunisetty@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:32 PM
> To: wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsrm] [editorial] change of element names
> 
> 
> 
>  I propose that all our Header element names start with the
>  prefix 'RM', i.e., Request element be renamed RMRequest,
>  PollRequest be renamed as RMPollRequest, and Response
>  be renamed RMResponse.
> 
>  Reason being that the current names are too generic and
>  could be confusing (to manual readers). Not an issue for
>  tools though as they are all QNames.
> 
>  Just to jot some memories, all our names indeed used to start
>  with this prefix a while back.
> 
>  However, they were removed later as people felt it is redundant
>  as the namespace prefix (used in some of our examples) also
>  use the word 'rm'.
> 
>  To me that's a flawed reasoning.
> 
>  Namespace prefix is just a namespace prefix. We can't mandate
>  that consumers of this always use the prefix 'rm'.  Namespace
>  prefix is just a convenience alias mechanism.
> 
>  It's valid and legal to use any prefix (foo:Request, xyz:InvalidMessageId
>  etc..) as long as the prefix is correctly defined to our namespace.
> 
>  Infact, the usage of prefix is not always required if the default 
> namespace
>  is defined to be RM namespace. As a matter of fact, the examples in
>  page 7-8-9 doesn't use any prefix for RM elements.
> 
>  -Sunil
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
> the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>