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 09:27:49 +0600
Message-ID: <012901c21d8a$a0a95720$c267b809@lankabook2>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Almost. It should be:

<!ELEMENT definitions ( import*, types?,
(message|portType|serviceType|binding|service)*)

(I made types optional.)

Oh the simplicity of DTDs ;-).

BTW, the above has the effect that types, if present, MUST come
after imports and before anything else. That seems quite reasonable
to me.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "WS-Desc WG (Public)"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: RE: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of "defini
tions"?


> So you actually want
>
> <!ELEMENT definitions ( import*, types,
> (message|portType|serviceType|binding|service)*)
>
> Yes?
>
> Looks OK to me
>
> Gudge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: 27 June 2002 03:47
> To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: Re: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of
> "defini tions"?
>
>
>
> 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 23:28:45 GMT

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