W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: DO on WS vs DO

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:10:29 -0800
To: "'Paul Denning'" <pauld@mitre.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f701c3dad2$145ca8b0$6401a8c0@beasys.com>

Hi all,

Thanks for the pointer.  What I'm alluding to is either updating Schema or
having a notion of validation that is broader than Schema.  And how does one
build "mustUnderstand" or "mustIgnore" into the validation logic yet express
a single schema?  A tricky problem.  The issue of what can be done I plan on
addressing in a follow-on article that hasn't quite got the final touches to
it.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Paul Denning
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:34 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: DO on WS vs DO
>
>
>
> David Orchard's take:
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/01/12/web_services_or_d
> istributed_objects
>
> He talks about "must ignore" and "touchless extensibility".
> He talks about Schema <xs:any>, but that it must be put into
> the schemas
> rather than default to must ignore.
>
> Note that SOAP has "mustUnderstand" that can be powerful,
> especially if the
> default is must ignore.
>
> Dave concludes by saying "I do think that the community
> should provide an
> easier model for creating and validating extensible xml languages."
>
> I'm not sure what "constraints" we could provide in WSA to
> address this
> concerns.
>
> I always liked this 2002 article
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/03/20/endpoints.html
> which states "Unfortunately, many XML-based applications are actually
> loosely typed but tightly coupled, which is the worst combination.
> This is one of the reasons adoption of XSD is a good idea."
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 14:08:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:25 GMT