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

RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second inline schema?

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:23:19 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B6338203493@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

The BP is defined over WSDL 1.1, and it's true that in WSDL 1.1 the schema processing rules are unclear.

I think WSDL 2.0 is much clearer in this regard and see no real reason to prohibit references across in-line schemas.

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> Sent: 19 October 2003 08:57
> To: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com; ryman@ca.ibm.com
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a 
> second inline schema?
> 
> Ümit wrote:
> 
> 		I would rather see inlined schemas to 
> dissappear altogether from WSDL. Instead of discussing the 
> semantics and the interpretation of inlined schemas within 
> WSDL, the problem can be left to Schema completely. 
> 		
> 
> I've thus far found stand-alone WSDLs very useful, but if the 
> rules are unclear how to reference between in-line schemas, 
> and the BP effectively prohibits it, then I agree: we should 
> consider removing inline schemas from WSDL.
>  
> Paul
>  
>  
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 19 October 2003 10:24:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT