Title: RE: [wsrm] [editorial] change of element names
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:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:32 PM
To:
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.
