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

RE: proposal for improving <documentation>

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:46:25 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA2012953AE@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

[Speaking personally. I just can't keep quiet on this one!]

XSD has xsd:annotation/xsd:appInfo because they don't allow extension
elements in arbitrary spots.  We do, so we can add machine-readable
information anywhere in WSDL.  The extra complexity in the syntax is
therefore completely unnecessary, and not backward compatible with WSDL
1.1.  I have always thought Schema's extensibility model was needlessly
Byzantine and hope we won't make the same mistake.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:45 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: proposal for improving <documentation>
> 
> 
> I'd like to propose that we change <documentation> to be
> consistent with XSD's <annotation> element:
> 
> <xsd:annotation>
>   <xsd:documentation> human readable stuff </xsd:documentation>
>   <xsd:appInfo> machine readable stuff </xsd:appInfo>
> </xsd:annotation>
> 
> So, I propose we drop <wsdl:documentation> and replace it
> with:
> 
>     <wsdl:annotation>
>       <wsdl:documentation> human readable stuff </wsdl:documentation>
>       <wsdl:appInfo> machine readable stuff </wsdl:appInfo>
>     </wsdl:annotation>
> 
> This allows tools to use this hook and furthermore we'd
> be consistent with XSD, which is said to be a good thing ;-).
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 13:46:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT