- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:17:45 -0400
- To: Lawrence Mandel <lmandel@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:58:52 -0400 Lawrence Mandel <lmandel@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Following from this description, can someone give me an example of a > problem that may arise if the schema is defined as follows? (I updated it > to allow extensibility elements before the types element.) Ambiguous content model. Not allowed in schema; likely to be triggered by anyElement when other content is optional. Specifically, if you have: <wsdl:description> <other:random /> ... </wsdl:description> you don't know whether that's the any paired with include/import or the one that interleaves with interface/binding/service; you don't know, because types is optional, whether to expect types, interface/service/ binding/any, or what. UPA. We keep tripping over it. The WSDL 1.1 schema has a similar problem. (tangentially, this is not a problem for RNG, and it is known that some schema validators refuse to implement the UPA constraint. However, we're sorta stuck here. We can't get all the way to accurate, and the more complex we get, the less likely it is that people will look at the (normative) text.) Hmmm. I'd recommend that we document this in our schema, including text to the effect: The content model of the documentation element as represented in schema is not complete. Validators MUST implement the constraints as specified in [specref], which permits extension elements in more locations than we can show in a schema that abides by the UPA constraint. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 14:22:48 UTC