W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2003

Re: WSDL 1.1 schema question

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:02:11 +0600
Message-ID: <009e01c2f3a8$afb00940$a200a8c0@lankabook2>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I agree in concept, of course. However, in practice the XSD would 
have to have way more flexibility than really legal due to XSD
limitations. Those would have to be documented in annotations,
meaning that XSD validation simply ain't good enough. 

In that setting, I'm not so sure making the XSD normative is
very useful or accurate.

What does our resident schema expert think?

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:03 AM
Subject: RE: WSDL 1.1 schema question


> 
> +1
> 
> > From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
> > As a tool developer, I find the second class status of the schema to
> be a
> > bad idea. After all, schema is a precise formal language that supports
> > machine processing. My goal as a WG member is that we should provide a
> > normative schema since that is unambiguous in comparison with the
> narative
> > prose in the spec.
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 10:01:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT