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: 30 Sep 2002 10:45:53 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1033397154.1540.72.camel@chacal>

On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 08:11, ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:
> I guess I was unclear. I am not saying XSD is a good example. I am saying
> that XSD has the same problem as WSDL because a QName in XSD could refer to
> both a type and an element.
> 
> My question was, "Will XSD come up with a solution that satisifies the URI
> requirement?" and, if so, "Shouldn't WSDL (and any other spec) follow the
> same approach to avoid a profusion of solutions?"
> 
> An example of a solution is "Make all QNames unique." but that is probably
> unacceptable due to the common practice in XSD of using the same same for
> related types and elements.

I believe that common practice in XSD are also to use postfixes notation
in order to differente types and element names, so imposing this
restriction in WSDL would not hurt current practices. Again, let's not
make the same mistake as XSD, just because XSD happened to do it.

Philippe
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 10:46:04 GMT

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