W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Open Content Model

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:26:29 -0400
Message-ID: <005c01c1ebce$52042c00$b63c8640@lankabook2>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I would personally preferred to have open-content on selected elements
rather than saying "arbitrary XML can be inserted anywhere." That is,
I prefer architected open-content rather than flat-out openness. 

Example: If we decide that the language should not have portType
(interface) inheritance, then having an open-content model would
allow one to easily supplant that restriction by adding an attribute
or element to <portType>. IMO that's bad.

Jonathan: If I recall correctly XSLT is not fully open-content: 
weren't there some restrictions on top-level elements and their impact
on the processing model? That's akin to what I would prefer;
architected extensionsibility with good rationale.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Ballinger" <keithba@microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:06 PM
Subject: Open Content Model


One item I've had on my plate is to describe why the open content model
is something we should try to take advantage of as much as possible with
the WDSL revision. 
 
To begin with, when I say open content model, I mostly mean allowing
extra element and attributes from other namespaces within a schema. This
is typically done with the <any/> and <anyAttribute/> schema tags. These
elements also allow you to specify which namespace (including ##other,
which means any namespace but the one in the schema), as well as the
default processing of these elements. An example of this can be found
with the <binding> element in WSDL today. This element allows child
elements of the type: <any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
 
Working with SOAP and WSDL over the past few years has shown me the
value in allowing this open content model. It is very useful especially
for extending a specification in new ways. As authors of specs, we may
cover many use cases and requirements in a first class way, but we need
to provide for those other requirements that come to us that we don't
anticipate. The open content model allows us to handle many of these. 
 
I would also recommend that we keep WSDLs mustUnderstand feature for
extensions, the wsdl:required attribute.
 
As a matter of technique, I feel that we should be overly open as
opposed to overly closed. This would lead to putting this open content
model on all elements, and then finding reasons why it shouldn't be on
one. 
 
Cheers,
Keith
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 18:31:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT