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

RE: elementFormDefault="qualified" in WSDL Schema..

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:22:20 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145CCE6@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webMethods.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

[3] and [4] contain no local element decls, so value of
elementFormDefault is moot
[5] does have a single local element decl for 'part' and so
elementFormDefault should be 'qualified'

Gudge



-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webMethods.com] 
Sent: 27 June 2002 19:11
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: elementFormDefault="qualified" in WSDL Schema..



Thanks (I was mistaken). The examples in the spec that don't prefix
things do use default namespace declarations. So they are indeed
qualified and I agree that elementFormDefault should remain "qualified".

Now, the schemas fo SOAP, HTTP and MIME  bindings ([4],[5],[6]) don't
set elementFormDefault (and hence it defaults to "unqualified").
Shouldn't they be changed to require elementFormDefault="qualified"?

I concur with Gudge's opinion below. There are many examples in the spec
that do just this (i.e. use default namespace and not qualify elements).
Perhaps we should consider revising them as well..

> I would VERY strongly suggest that we never use default namespaces ( 
> like example 3 above ) in our examples. In my experience default 
> namespaces confuse things, whereas explicit prefixing makes everything

> clear.

Regards, Prasad

[3] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap
[4] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http
[5] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/MIME

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: elementFormDefault="qualified" in WSDL Schema..
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:25:30 -0700
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


I think you may be confused between 'qualified/unqualified' vs
'prefixed/unprefixed'

The elements in the following 3 examples are ALL qualified, but in the
last example they are unprefixed.

<wsdl:definitions xmlns:wsdl='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/wsdl' >
  <wsdl:message />
</wsdl:definitions>


<p:definitions xmlns:p='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/wsdl' >
  <p:message />
</p:definitions>


<definitions xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/wsdl' >
  <message />
</definitions>

In XML Schema elementFormDefault defines whether EIIs matching local
element declarations ( those that appear inside complex type definitions
) must have a non-empty [namespace name] property. In WSDL all elements
are qualified, so elementFormDefault='qualified' is correct. If we
change to 'unqualified' then the first example above would look like
this;

<wsdl:definitions xmlns:wsdl='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/wsdl' >
  <message />
</wsdl:definitions>

I would VERY strongly suggest that we never use default namespaces (
like example 3 above ) in our examples. In my experience default
namespaces confuse things, whereas explicit prefixing makes everything
clear.

Gudge

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webMethods.com]
Sent: 27 June 2002 01:01
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: elementFormDefault="qualified" in WSDL Schema..



All,

The WSDL Schema ([1] or [2]) sets the elementFormDefault="qualified".
This, AFAIK requires each element to qualified in the instance
documents, requiring one to use ns qualifiers with many of the elements
defined in the WSDL spec (<wsdl:message ..> <wsdl:service ..>
<wsdl:portType ..> etc. where the namespace
wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/").  Most of the WSDL instance
examples in the spec violate this. Why do we need to keep this? Can we
change elementFormDefault="unqualified" and be done with it? Or am I
mistaken here?

Regards, Prasad

[1] http://www.w3c.org/tr/wsdl
[2] http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 14:23:29 GMT

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