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

Re: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of "defini tions"?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:46:36 +0600
Message-ID: <010b01c21d84$e458f940$c267b809@lankabook2>
To: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Thinking more about this issue: should we force all <import>s
to come first? That seems to be clean. If so the content model
would be:
    definitions: import*, (types|message|portType|serviceType|
                           binding|service)*
(+ the constraint of at most 1 <types> element.)

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>; "WS-Desc WG (Public)"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of "defini
tions"?


>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I agree- what I was proposing was an explicit modification to the
> language to clarify that the order of top-level elements is
> immaterial and then to close this issue.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
> To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "WS-Desc WG
(Public)"
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:09 AM
> Subject: RE: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of "defini
> tions"?
>
>
> >
> > The point is to make sure examples are consistent with the schema - Just
> try
> > XML Spy to validate this example against the WSDL11 schema, it will tell
> you
> > that the file is not valid.
> >
> > If element order is not important, the schema should reflect that.
> >
> > Regards,  Kevin
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:39 PM
> > To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> > Subject: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of
> > "definitions"?
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose that we indicate that the order of child
> > elements of <definitions> is immaterial and close this issue. Given
> > that we have agreed to use QName references always, this seems to
> > be the obvious choice.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >   <issue>
> >     <issue-num>43</issue-num>
> >     <title>Does order matter for the child elements of
> > "definitions"?</title>
> >     <locus>Spec</locus>
> >     <requirement>n/a</requirement>
> >     <priority>Editorial</priority>
> >     <topic></topic>
> >     <status>Active</status>
> >     <originator><a href="mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com">Kevin
> > Liu</a></originator>
> >     <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
> >     <description>
> >     [<a
> >
>
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0023.html">ema
> > il</a>]
> >     [see also issue #10]
> >     <pre>Section 3.1 SOAP Examples, example 3 lists &lt;types&gt;
> > as the last element under &lt;definitions&gt;. This is inconsistent
> > with the schema where &lt;type&gt; is defined as the second of the
> > sequenced elements of the "definitionsType"; similar issue with
> > section 4.1 HTTP GET and POST Binding example 6 where &lt;binding&gt;
> > is put after &lt;service&gt;
> >
> > References:
> >  Section 3.1 SOAP Examples, example 3
> >     Section 4.1 HTTP GET and POST Binding example 6
> >  A 4.1 WSDL Schema</pre>
> >     </description>
> >     <proposal>
> >     </proposal>
> >     <resolution>
> >     </resolution>
> >   </issue>
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 22:47:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT