W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

Re: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032]

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:58:18 +0600
Message-ID: <058201c4c935$0314a1f0$64c83109@LANKABOOK>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>, <rsalz@datapower.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <markn@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

+1 to whether it should've been published, but now that it is
IMO it cannot be ignored.

In any case, it would be worthwhile to see whether it can be
supported without major pain ..

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>; <rsalz@datapower.com>; "Mark Nottingham"
<markn@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 3:43 AM
Subject: RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032]


>
> I'm only interested in XML 1.0.  XML 1.1 should have never been
> published as a Rec given the backwards incompatibility and lack of
> foreseeable Schema support.
>
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:33 PM
> > To: rsalz@datapower.com; Mark Nottingham
> > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032]
> >
> > Rich wrote:
> > >   a) Should we describe the specification using XML Schema?
> > >   b) Should such a schema replace the "pseudo-schema"?
> > >   c) Should such a schema be normative?
> > >   d) Should such a schema be developed alongside the spec, or should
> we
> > > wait until the spec is more stable (i.e., is someone willing to
> track
> > > the spec)?
> > >
> > > Would you agree?
> >
> > i'm all for providing normative schemas for each of our bindings, esp
> for
> > testing purposes. that does, however, possibly raise issues regarding
> > which version of XML would be supported ..
> >
> > Ignoring XML 1.1 completely could be seen as being politically
> incorrect
> > given it's now a W3C recommendation ..
> >
> > The WSDL WG went to great lengths to abstract the types used to store
> > informational items in their component model so as to support XML 1.0
> and
> > 1.1 and other possible serialisations.  i guess we could go down a
> similar
> > path
> > and make the types in the core spec abstract, but that might not make
> > sense to
> > everyone.
> >
> > Given Schema 1.0 doesn't (yet) support XML 1.1 we would be only able
> to
> > provide schemas for the SOAP and WSDL bindings for XML 1.0 anyway.
> >
> > Paul
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2004 03:59:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT