Talk:Tempuri
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Examples
[edit]Here are some pages where you run into http://tempuri.org/
http://www.w3schools.com/webservices/tempconvert.asmx http://www.w3schools.com/webservices/ws_example.asp
In the above example they publish a web service using Microsoft ASP by making a file called "tempconvert.asmx". They use VBScript, at the top of the file they put this line:
<%@ WebService Language="VBScript" Class="TempConvert" %>
But that's not complete. It doesn't specify a namespace. ASP will supply a default namespace, which is "http://tempuri.org/", but you're really supposed to supply your own. I think the final line is supposed to look like this:
<%@ WebService Language="VBScript" Class="TempConvert" Namespace:="http://somedomainthatihaveregistered.com/myservice/" %>
Not a Microsoft specific URI
[edit]http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.html#_Toc492291095
"When working with WSDL, it is sometimes desirable to make up a URI for an entity, but not make the URI globally unique for all time and have it "mean" that version of the entity (schema, WSDL document, etc.). There is a particular URI base reserved for use for this type of behavior. The base URI "http://tempuri.org/" can be used to construct a URI without any unique association to an entity. For example, two people or programs could choose to simultaneously use the URI "http://tempuri.org/myschema" for two completely different schemas, and as long as the scope of the use of the URIs does not intersect, then they are considered unique enough. This has the further benefit that the entity referred to by the URI can be versioned without having to generate a new URI, as long as it makes sense within the processing context. It is not recommended that "http://tempuri.org/" be used as a base for stable, fixed entities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.65.178 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note that two of the authors of that report were Microsoft representatives, and the quoted paragraph from WSDL 1.1 was dropped from WSDL 1.2, back in 2001.
- Besides, what's wrong with good old "example.org"?