I agree with all what you say, but I have just one
1. Select the encoding for this message as
2. Read this
This how Russians call SAP. It sounds the same, but
they use their alphabet. I suspect that Chinese, Japanese and other non-Latin
alphabets have their own transcriptions/interpretations.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 12:12
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Omission of
use="optional" on the description element
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 22.214.171.124 of the V3 specification
for more details. Also, using statically defined or out-of-band negotiated
default values can invalidate digital signatures.
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 126.96.36.199) 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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sent: Thu 19/06/2003
To: Luc Clement
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec]
Omission of use="optional" on the description
Yes, the xml:lang is optional everywhere else but for
agree we weren't consistent in its
treatment. I also seem to recall that
intentionally left as required here because descriptions are
to be human readable text and having the xml:lang can be
for such uses. We should consider if this line
of reasoning is important
before making it optional I
Other opinions? Someone with a different
recollection than mine here?
Bellwood Phone: (512) 838-9957
(external); TL: 678/9957
OASIS UDDI Specification TC
STSM - Emerging Technologies
"Luc Clement" <email@example.com>
on 06/18/2003 01:39:47 PM
[uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the
Tom / TC,
Please note that the
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
... when I think we should have it
leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php