<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>minimalistic 1-point trivial opinion on side issue:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-08-23 23:01 GMT+02:00 Patrick Dowler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pdowler.cadc@gmail.com" target="_blank">pdowler.cadc@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-size:small">I have verified that the xmlns:uws declaration can be moved up to either the enclosing capability element or to the (document) capabilities element with no change in meaning (e.g. parsing with schema validation enabled and finding the interfaces in the right namespace requires no code change -- using xerces and jdom2, which are both extremely correct).</div><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-size:small">I do agree it looks tidier, but now to decide if the xmlns should go in the capability or higher up in the document (with the others). For a couple of reasons I think we should recommend that doc writers put it up the the document (reasons: de-facto standard prefix practice, consistency if there are two capability elements that use this namespace prefix, etc).</div><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-size:small">Side issue: UWS already has an xsd and the de-facto namespace prefix is uws, so we should not start using that prefix in this context (because even if we do decide that UWSRegExt is the right idea we probably won't just include the interface tagging in the main uws xsd). So we do need to pick an alternate prefix to use for now.... ure? foo?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>would be uwsre that bad?</div><div><br></div><div>Marco</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class=""><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-size:small">--<br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="m_-2222200576939588045gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Patrick Dowler<br></div>Canadian Astronomy Data Centre<br></div>Victoria, BC, Canada<br></div></div></div><br></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 08:49, Mark Taylor <<a href="mailto:m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Brian,<br>
<br>
thanks for responses and edits. A couple of followups below:<br>
<br>
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Brian Major wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi Mark,<br>
> <br>
> Thanks for the review and comments.<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:21 AM Mark Taylor <<a href="mailto:m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> ><br>
> > Sec 3.1 example capability document:<br>
> > The stanza following the comment "# TAP 1.0 support" is a <capability><br>
> > element inside a <capability> element. I don't think that's legal -<br>
> > should those two <interface> elements be present here on their own?<br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> Hmm, I don't see that in the version I'm editing. Perhaps it was fixed by<br>
> someone else?<br>
<br>
Yes, Markus did it at r5066.<br>
<br>
> > The stanza following the comment "# TAP 1.1 support" contains<br>
> > several <interface> elements with identical namespace declaration<br>
> > attributes xmlns:uws="<a href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ivoa.<wbr>net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0</a>".<br>
> > This XML would (IMHO) be more readable if the that namespace<br>
> > attribute were factored out to an outer element<br>
> > (e.g. the top-level <capability>).<br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> I agree about the readability but, since the new 'type' values are an<br>
> extension of 'Interface' in the XSD, doesn't that break the rules? Anyone<br>
> know?<br>
<br>
For clarity, I'm suggesting that:<br>
<br>
<capability standardID="ivo://<a href="http://ivoa.net/std/TAP" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ivoa.net/<wbr>std/TAP</a>"><br>
...<br>
<interface<br>
xmlns:uws="<a href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ivoa.<wbr>net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0</a>"<br>
xsi:type="uws:Sync" role="std" version="1.1"><br>
<accessURL use="base"><a href="http://example.com/tap/sync" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://example.com/<wbr>tap/sync</a></accessURL><br>
</interface><br>
<interface<br>
xmlns:uws="<a href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ivoa.<wbr>net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0</a>"<br>
xsi:type="uws:Sync" role="std" version="1.1"><br>
<accessURL use="base"><a href="https://example.com/tap/sync" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://example.<wbr>com/tap/sync</a></accessURL><br>
<securityMethod standardID="ivo://<a href="http://ivoa.net/sso#tls-with-certificate" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ivoa.net/<wbr>sso#tls-with-certificate</a>"/><br>
</interface><br>
...<br>
</capability><br>
<br>
is changed to<br>
<br>
<capability standardID="ivo://<a href="http://ivoa.net/std/TAP" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ivoa.net/<wbr>std/TAP</a>"<br>
xmlns:uws="<a href="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ivoa.<wbr>net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0</a>"><br>
...<br>
<interface xsi:type="uws:Sync" role="std" version="1.1"><br>
<accessURL use="base"><a href="http://example.com/tap/sync" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://example.com/<wbr>tap/sync</a></accessURL><br>
</interface><br>
<interface xsi:type="uws:Sync" role="std" version="1.1"><br>
<accessURL use="base"><a href="https://example.com/tap/sync" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://example.<wbr>com/tap/sync</a></accessURL><br>
<securityMethod standardID="ivo://<a href="http://ivoa.net/sso#tls-with-certificate" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ivoa.net/<wbr>sso#tls-with-certificate</a>"/><br>
</interface><br>
...<br>
</capability><br>
<br>
Since that's just a change in the location of the xmlns:uws declaration(s),<br>
but leaving the same declarations in scope where they need to appear<br>
(the <interface> open tags) I *believe* it leaves the meaning of<br>
the XML identical, i.e. doesn't break any rules. But I can't give<br>
chapter and verse in the relevant W3C standard for that,<br>
so I might be wrong. Certainly happy to have somebody more expert<br>
than me offer an opinion.<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
--<br>
Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK<br>
<a href="mailto:m.b.taylor@bris.ac.uk" target="_blank">m.b.taylor@bris.ac.uk</a> +44-117-9288776 <a href="http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~<wbr>mbt/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>