W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > May 2003

Re: [BH] First (Very Rought) Outline of Beyond HTTP

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:32:40 -0400
To: Patrick.Hung@csiro.au
Cc: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Message-Id: <200305131632.40280.reagle@w3.org>

On Tuesday 13 May 2003 05:39, Patrick.Hung@csiro.au wrote:
> Based on your XForm example [2], I am <simply/> creating a sample WSDL
> document
> for the registry's "register" service as follows:

Patrick, the service description is true to the scenario, but as I'm not a 
WSDL expert, what led you to include the my:Privacy element as a child of 
the wsdl:definitions?

Section 2.1.2 states:
  Zero or more namespace qualified element information items
  amongst its [children]. Such element information items MUST be a 
  member of one of the element substitution groups allowed at the 
  top-level of a WSDL document as described in 6. Language Extensibility.
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030303/#Definitions_XMLRep

So if I understand the WSDL extension model, we would also have to have our 
own schema that includes a redefinition of globalExt or base my:Privacy on 
the ExtensibilityElement complexType? (I don't understand this myself yet 
and haven't found a good example.)

Also, I presume that our WSDL extension is optional. Privacy is not optional 
at the point of solicitation, but since we are saying a WSDL declaration is 
(usefully) redundant, I don't think we need to argue that a WSDL processor 
must understand our extension to even process the description.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 16:45:55 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:46:24 EST