W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:43:13 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B6338017EA453@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Have you implemented it already? ;-)
 
Gudge
 
P.S. I've always thought it mildly amusing to have an attribute whose
name is element ( or vice versa ) ;-)


________________________________

	From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
	Sent: 16 March 2004 11:01
	To: 'Arthur Ryman'
	Cc: 'WS Description List'
	Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
	
	

	 

	We just changed the name of this attribute to "element".

	-1 to changing it AGAIN.

	 

	--
	Tom Jordahl
	Macromedia Server Development

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:05 PM
	To: Tom Jordahl
	Cc: 'Jonathan Marsh'; 'WS Description List';
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

	 

	
	Correction to my note: 
	
	s/elementReference/element/ 
	
	Same comment applies. It's not an element anymore. 
	
	Arthur Ryman,
	Rational Desktop Tools Development
	
	phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
	assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
	fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
	mobile: +1-416-939-5063
	intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/ 
	
	

Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

03/16/2004 09:30 AM 

To

"'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'WS Description List'"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org> 

cc

 

Subject

RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

 

 

 

	
	
	
	  
	Jonathan, 
	  
	You meant to say "elementReference is the name of a type so it
would NOT appear in the syntax" 
	  
	Right? 
	  

	--
	Tom Jordahl
	Macromedia Server Development 
	-----Original Message-----
	From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
	Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:48 PM
	To: WS Description List
	Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150 
	  
	elementReference is the name of a type so it would appear in the
syntax.  I like messageBody better too.  Or I suppose we could just get
rid of the reference altogether, right? 
	  
	<xs:attribute name="element" > 
	       <xs:simpleType> 
	               <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName"> 
	                       <xs:simpleType> 
	                               <xs:restriction base="xs:token"> 
	                                       <xs:enumeration
value="#any" /> 
	                                       <xs:enumeration
value="#empty" /> 
	                               </xs:restriction> 
	                       </xs:simpleType> 
	               </xs:union> 
	       </xs:simpleType> 
	</xs:attribute> 
	  
	  
	  

	 

	
________________________________


	
	From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:58 PM
	To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
	Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Jonathan Marsh; WS Description List;
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
	Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150 
	  
	
	Sanjiva, 
	
	The XML Schema looks fine except for a couple of minor errors.
Here's a corrected version: 
	
	       <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference" /> 
	
	       <xs:simpleType name="elementReference"> 
	               <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName"> 
	                       <xs:simpleType> 
	                               <xs:restriction base="xs:token"> 
	                                       <xs:enumeration
value="#any" /> 
	                                       <xs:enumeration
value="#empty" /> 
	                               </xs:restriction> 
	                       </xs:simpleType> 
	               </xs:union> 
	       </xs:simpleType> 
	
	
	However, I dislike the name of the attribute, elementReference,
since the whole point of introducing it was to allow the case where
there is no element reference. How about @messageBody or @bodyContent
instead? 
	
	Arthur Ryman,
	Rational Desktop Tools Development
	
	phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
	assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
	fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
	mobile: +1-416-939-5063
	intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/ 

"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

03/11/2004 10:50 PM 

 

To

"Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Jonathan Marsh"
<jmarsh@microsoft.com> 

cc

"WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> 

Subject

Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150


  

 

  

 

	
	
	
	
	
	Looks good to me too .. however I'll let Arthur indicate an IBM
	position as I can barely spell schiema let alone make value
	judgements about the goodness of using unions.
	
	Sanjiva.
	
	----- Original Message -----
	From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
	To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
	Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
	Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:58 PM
	Subject: 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
	> > 
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 14:43:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT