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

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

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:26:47 -0700
Message-ID: <3D1B7507.953E5DB@webmethods.com>
To: David Cleary <davec@progress.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org


I was not suggesting we change the spec based on the examples. I was citing
examples to support my issue. Anyhow I agree with your other points..

Regards, Prasad

David Cleary wrote:

> > 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?
> Many of the examples in the spec suffer from errors, but they should be
> fixed instead of changing the spec. Unless you have a reason why local
> elements should not be qualified, the status quo should be kept. A WSDL
> document contains multiple namespaces. Arbitrarly changing the schema to use
> unqualified local elements without a good reason will make reading and
> processing WSDL more error prone and harder to read. Unqualified elements
> should be used in situations similar to the use of unqualified attributes.
> If the data contained in the element is useless without its parent or
> siblings, using unqualified elements to reinforce this fact makes sense.
> However, that is not the case here.
> BTW, the WSDL schema doesn't appear to use local element definitions in any
> case, making the argument moot.
> David Cleary
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 16:23:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:39 UTC