Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

I applaud the elegance of this proposal. 8-)
I hope it will be accepted.

Jacek

On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 18:55, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Issues 146 [.1] and 150 [.2] were inadvertently left off the FTF agenda.
> Sorry my bad.  Here's a simple proposal for addressing these issues,
> assuming we find merit in adding this functionality.
> 
> Issue 146 Should WSDL be able to describe an operation with *anything*
> in the message? [.1]
> 
> Issue 150 Indicating empty bodies [.2]
> 
> When using XML SchemaS, The element attribute points to a QName of a
> GED, preventing either empty bodies, or unconstrained content.  Special
> values of the element attribute could indicate these conditions.
> 
> Status quo:
>   <xs:attribute name="element" type="xs:QName" use="optional" />
> 
> Proposal:
>   <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference" use="optional" />
> 
>   <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
>     <xs:union>
>       <xs:simpleType memberTypes="xs:QName">
>         <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
>           <xs:enumeration value="#any"/>
>           <xs:enumeration value="#empty"/>
>         </xs:restriction>
>       </xs:simpleType>
>     </xs:union>
>   </xs:simpleType>
> 
> (I hope I have got that syntax right.  Should be enough to spark
> discussion anyway...)
> 
> [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x146
> [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x150
>