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

Re: Arguments for keeping R120

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: 27 Sep 2002 17:48:31 -0400
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1033163311.960.8.camel@chacal>

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 17:03, ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> Eric,
> 
> WSDL syntax is modelled on XSD in the sense that in XSD you can have a type
> and an element that have the same name. What is the recommended solution
> for XSD? Shouldn't WSDL follow that for simplicity?

And we ended up having a type attribute and an element attribute in the
WSDL part element, so I don't think that following XSD here sets a good
example at all. A proposal for simplicity [1] advocates to add a
complexType wrapper element construction in WSDL in order to eliminate
the element attribute. We cannot change XSD but we can still change
WSDL.

Philippe

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0055.html
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 17:48:43 GMT

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