Tom:
Your reaction was precisely my initial
reaction (this item has come up before). We all know that the namespace
prefix is non-normative, it is sugar coating, for all we care WS-Resource
Properties could have a "conventional prefix" of "foobar:"
and nothing normative would change.
For me, the namespace prefix convention
shifting to wsrf-rp helps to reinforce the wsrf family of specs. That
is basically how I view it to get past my initial distaste of "the
prefix is non-normative, what the heck is the fuss all about?"
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
Tom Maguire/Hawthorne/IBM@IBMUS
06/24/2004 07:41 AM
To:
Ian Robinson <>
cc:
Subject:
Re: [wsrf] New issue: Avoid use of "wsrp"
for namespace prefix of shorthand for WS-ResourceProperties
I do not understand this request; the namespace prefix is non-normative
in
the specifications and anyone can and will change it to whatever they need.
Are we trying to standardize prefixes?
Tom
T o m M a g u i r e
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
internet:
phone: 845.433.9401
Ian Robinson
<ian_robinson@uk.
ibm.com>
To
06/24/2004 06:54
cc
AM
Subject
[wsrf] New
issue: Avoid use of
"wsrp"
for namespace prefix of
shorthand
for WS-ResourceProperties
Special request from the Web Service for Remote Portlets TC, who have a
prior claim to "WSRP" as an acronym.
We could consider changing all our namespace prefixes to wsrf-rp, wsrf-rl
etc and including "WSRF-RP" etc as the abbreviated form of the
specification name in the introductions of each spec to start to train
people not to say "WSRP" when they mean "WS-ResourceProperties".
Regards,
Ian
