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

RE: importing docs in the same namespace

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:55:25 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30866@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
> Sent: 04 October 2002 19:42
> To: Martin Gudgin; 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; 'WS-Desc WG (Public)'
> Subject: RE: importing docs in the same namespace
> 
<SNIP/>
> 
> Yup.  Add in PortReferences, and you could do some pretty 
> interesting things with interoperable static interfaces 
> definition and dynamic addressing.

Sounds interesting.

<SNIP/>
> 
> Agreed I can use XInclude.  But without making it - or 
> something like it - a normative part of wsdl, how do I get 
> interop?  Sure, my WSDL parser might support XInclude, but if 
> yours doesn't then we don't have interop.   

Actually thinking about it, you can't just XInclude another WSDL infoset
verbatim, 'cause the resulting Infoset wouldn't match the WSDL schema.
In theory you could XInclude all the [children] of wsdl:definitions. But
in practice, in the face of wsdl:import and wsdl:types you'd have the
same problem. So I think something along the lines of xsd:include is the
way to go, it's a component level include rather than an infoset level
include.

<SNIP/>
> > 
> > Remember, if you see a light at the end of the tunnerl, 
> > you're about to
> > get crushed by an oncoming train!
> > 
> 
> That's always so ominous when coming from somebody who's 
> email address ends in microsoft.com.  

Ouch!

Gudge
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 14:55:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT