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: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:09:18 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020627080908.00dc8540@gmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1,
   jeff

At 08:30 PM 6/26/02, Martin Gudgin wrote:

>Oops, yes missed the fact that types should be optional.
>
>Gudge
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
>Sent: 27 June 2002 04:28
>To: Martin Gudgin; WS-Desc WG (Public)
>Subject: Re: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of
>"defini tions"?
>
>
>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.htm
> > l"
> > >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>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky                    jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Consulting Member Technical Staff   +1(650)506-1975 (voice)
Oracle Corporation                  +1(650)506-7225 (fax)
400 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP960
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 23:58:57 GMT

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