W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Do <import> and <include> support extensibility elements?

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:01:46 -0500
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA8A28CB5.A9756867-ON852570CE.0072D2F8-852570CE.007382CA@ca.ibm.com>
Amy,

Allowing extension would not fuzz up the component model since there are 
no components for <include> or <import>. The extension elements could 
therefore not be child components. They could be used for other purposes. 
e.g we allow child <documentation> elements. Maybe someone will find 
another use for child elements.

I also can't think of any convincing purpose for the extension elements, 
but the general design point of WSDL 2.0 is to allow extension virtually 
everywhere.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
12/05/2005 12:25 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject
Re: Do <import> and <include> support extensibility elements?







I have an opinion.  FWIW.  :-)

import and include should *not* permit extensibility elements.  It
fuzzes up the component model, and serves no purpose that I can think
of.

Jonathan, I think this is CR1 (even before CR!).

Amy!
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:11:32 -0500
Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

>John,
>
>You're right. The schema contradicts the spec. I'd don't see a lot of
>use for allowing extensibility elements in the <include> and
><import>elements since they do not map to WSDL components. However, in
>the spirit of extensibility and consistency, I supposed we should
>allow it, in which case the schema needs to be corrected. Do you have
>an opinion either way?
>
>Arthur Ryman,
>IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>
>blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
>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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
>
>
>
>"John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com> 
>Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>12/04/2005 02:40 PM
>
>To
>www-ws-desc@w3.org
>cc
>woden-dev@ws.apache.org, kaputin@uk.ibm.com
>Subject
>Do <import> and <include> support extensibility elements?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I'd like to clarify which WSDL elements support extensibility
>elements. 
>
>Part 1, section 6.1 Element based Extensibility states:
>WSDL 2.0 allows namespace-qualified element information items whose 
>[namespace name] is NOT "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" to appear
>among the [children] of specific element information items whose
>[namespace name] is "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl".
>
>The word 'specific' suggests some WSDL elements do not support 
>extensibility elements. This is backed up by the WSDL 2.0 schema at 
>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/wsdl20.xsd which indicates that all
>WSDL 2.0 elements except <import> and <include> support extensibility
>elements.
>
>However, in Part 1 all of the sections that describe the xml 
>representation for each WSDL element state that the [children] of the
>WSDL element may contain:
>Zero or more namespace-qualified element information items whose 
>[namespace name] is NOT "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl"
>
>i.e. this text applies to <include> and <import> too, in sections 4.1
>and 4.2, which seems to contradict the schema.
>
>Is this correct? Can <include> and <import> have extensibility
>elements?
>
>Thanks,
>John Kaputin.
>
>
>


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 21:01:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:37 GMT