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: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:45:15 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1CB5@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Tom

nicely put: +1 

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com]
Sent: 23 October 2003 16:40
To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second
inline schema?




I do not think that moving away from inline Schema is a good thing.  This would fly in the face of existing practice.

I like the restrictions that the BP has made to WSDL 1.1 (Schema import for Schema, wsdl import for WSDL).  We should make sure 2.0 says something similar if it doesn't already.

I think we should make sure that 2.0 is clear that multiple inline schema fragments are allowed and should be supported by processors.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 3:57 AM
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 Thursday, 23 October 2003 11:45:21 GMT

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