To me this is not the same. There is a difference between a schema
including another schema fragment explicitely and the implicit merging
of 2 schemas in a WSDL file because they both have the same namespace.
For example, with our Schema model the case below would result in a
schema with a child that is an include - there is no merging as such.
Validation can work out if there is a conflict but the schemas are not
flattened into one. Logically they are as you can look up a type in
either the including or included schema with the same result.
However, the idea of 2 (or more) schemas with the same namespace in
WSDL is not addressed by the Schema specification because there is no
explicit link between the different schemas. A schema parser is allowed
to load the schema document for a given namespace locating it in
whatever fashion it likes including using a document already parsed and
in memory. It is perfectly valid (in my opinion) for the second schema
in the WSDL to be ignored as the parser can decide it already has that
schema and return the first schema as the result. It is also valid for
the loading of the 2 schemas to result in completely separate schema
instances, not linked together in any way.
To me a Schema is built from a root document down through includes (and
imports but that is not relevant here). There is no magic gluing
together of schemas just because they share a namespace - except
arguably the nonamespace schema which, to me, is a mess in itself.
Again, what purpose would this serve if it was to be supported? As the
implementor of our Schema support I would not like to see this being
Glen Daniels wrote:
Well, sure that would be easy, but I think this is the exact same
problem as if you had:
<xs:element name="foo" type="xs:int"/>
<xs:element name="bar" type="xs:float"/>
This wouldn't trigger your case below, but it would still result in a
"merged" schema, wouldn't it? And if you replace "bar" in XSD2 with
"foo", you get a conflict which needs to somehow be resolved. I think
this should have already been dealt with by the schema group, but a
cursory search hasn't yet netted me anything. I glanced through the
somewhat dense text of
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#compound-schema, but didn't see any
obvious statement about what to do if components are redefined without
an explicit <redefine> tag.
Rather than disallowing it, I think we should simply treat it as a
synonym for including the two <schema> elements, and simply be clear on
how that should resolve, with guidance from the schema WG as David
From: Pete Hendry [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 6:50 PM
To: David Booth
Cc: Glen Daniels; Jeehong Min; WS Description List
Subject: Re: Can multiple inline schemas have same targetNamespace?
Rather than say you cannot be clear about it why not make a
It is not permitted and if it is present then it is an error.
Nothing ambiguous there and it clears up the issue. It is a
lot easier for an implementation to detect this and error
than it is to try to work around it merging schemas and such.
Is there a purpose in allowing it?
David Booth wrote:
This is an interesting question, and I think it needs to be
in our spec, in case others also run into this issue. I've just
written to the XML Schema group for clarification from an
XML Schema point of view:
Perhaps we should suggest that WSDL authors avoid doing
this, in order
to avoid the issue, if we cannot be clear about whether or not it is
permitted and what it means.
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 11:24, Glen Daniels wrote:
As long as there is no overlap between the component definitions in
multiple schema containers for the same namespace, I think
work just fine. If there is overlap, we simply need to follow what
the schema spec says about how to resolve repeated components in a
schema (I'm not sure, though, if that's fault, first-one-wins, or
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Jeehong Min
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:48 PM
Subject: Can multiple inline schemas have same targetNamespace?
I would appreciate it if you could address the following
issue that I
have seen in WSDLs of 2 customers in the past month.
One vendor's SOAP stack is creating WSDLs with multiple inline
schemas that have the same namespace.
Here's an example:
types and elements
different types and elements
It's not clear to me whether the above is legal or not
with the same targetNamespace="a"). Should XML parsers
for WSDL be
smart enough to handle the above? Or should parsers report errors?
"We Make Software Work"