Home for the UWS Registry Extension?

[Mark Taylor]

Brian,

thanks for responses and edits.  A couple of followups below:

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Brian Major wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> Thanks for the review and comments.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:21 AM Mark Taylor <m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Sec 3.1 example capability document:
> >    The stanza following the comment "# TAP 1.0 support" is a <capability>
> >    element inside a <capability> element.   I don't think that's legal -
> >    should those two <interface> elements be present here on their own?
> >
> 
> Hmm, I don't see that in the version I'm editing.  Perhaps it was fixed by
> someone else?

Yes, Markus did it at r5066.

> >    The stanza following the comment "# TAP 1.1 support" contains
> >    several <interface> elements with identical namespace declaration
> >    attributes xmlns:uws="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0".
> >    This XML would (IMHO) be more readable if the that namespace
> >    attribute were factored out to an outer element
> >    (e.g. the top-level <capability>).
> >
> 
> I agree about the readability but, since the new 'type' values are an
> extension of 'Interface' in the XSD, doesn't that break the rules?  Anyone
> know?

For clarity, I'm suggesting that:

  <capability standardID="ivo://ivoa.net/std/TAP">
    ...
    <interface
         xmlns:uws="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0"
         xsi:type="uws:Sync" role="std" version="1.1">
      <accessURL use="base">http://example.com/tap/sync</accessURL>
    </interface>
    <interface
         xmlns:uws="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0"
         xsi:type="uws:Sync" role="std" version="1.1">
      <accessURL use="base">https://example.com/tap/sync</accessURL>
      <securityMethod standardID="ivo://ivoa.net/sso#tls-with-certificate"/>
    </interface>
    ...
  </capability>

is changed to

  <capability standardID="ivo://ivoa.net/std/TAP"
              xmlns:uws="http://www.ivoa.net/xml/UWSRegExt/v1.0">
    ...
    <interface xsi:type="uws:Sync" role="std" version="1.1">
      <accessURL use="base">http://example.com/tap/sync</accessURL>
    </interface>
    <interface xsi:type="uws:Sync" role="std" version="1.1">
      <accessURL use="base">https://example.com/tap/sync</accessURL>
      <securityMethod standardID="ivo://ivoa.net/sso#tls-with-certificate"/>
    </interface>
    ...
  </capability>

Since that's just a change in the location of the xmlns:uws declaration(s),
but leaving the same declarations in scope where they need to appear
(the <interface> open tags) I *believe* it leaves the meaning of
the XML identical, i.e. doesn't break any rules.  But I can't give
chapter and verse in the relevant W3C standard for that,
so I might be wrong.  Certainly happy to have somebody more expert
than me offer an opinion.

Mark

--
Mark Taylor   Astronomical Programmer   Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-9288776  http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/