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

Re: Conflicts of WSDL schemas

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 09:41:45 +0600
Message-ID: <000001c1ee69$97fc36b0$17aa7cca@lankabook2>
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
The schema for WSDL 1.1 that's in the spec was done before schema
went to rec. Recently (I forget exactly when), the schema located
at http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ was updated to be compliant
with the schema rec; hence the mismatch.

I would consider the updated schema more valid. For extensibility
elements the intent was always to allow them wherever.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "'Jonathan Marsh'"
<jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:55 PM
Subject: Conflicts of WSDL schemas


> Hi all,
>
> I got the below inqury from a colleague.
>
> To my knowledge, http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ is the target namespace
> defined by A4.1, and the two should be the same.
>
> Seems they have fell out of sync. Does anybody know what's going on here?
> Which one is the "valid" WSDL1.1 schema?
>
> or Am I missing anything here?
>
> Regards,
> Kevin
>
> >>>
> Up to now I always used the specification I found under
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.
> In this document there is also an XML-Schema for WSDL, that can be found
in
> A 4.1.
> Now I cam across another XML-Schema for WSDL under
> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/.
> Unfortuantely, this schema looks very much different.
> A closer look shows that both schemas are incompatible.
> Indeed, both specifications allow to add self-defined subelements as
> child-elements of the root-element <wsdl:definitions>.
> However, according to the first schema this has to be placed at the end of
> the document (behind elements like <wsdl:message>).
> This is shown in the definition of the complexType definitionsType.
> This comes also clear from the template shown in 2.1, as there we have the
> <-- extensibility element --> *
> at the end of the document.
> However, when you analyze the second schema the extensibility elements
have
> to be placed at the beginning.
> Indeed, the complexType tDefinitions is an extension of
> tExtensibleDocumented. tExtensibleDocumented declares the extensibility
> elements and tDefinitions adds the concrete wsdl-elements. Hence, the
> extensibility elements have to come first.
> Do you know anything about this?
> Can you tell me, which definition is valid?
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2002 00:06:07 GMT

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