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

Re: WSDL 2.0 element order enforcement in schema

From: Lawrence Mandel <lmandel@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:31:13 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF74F3FB45.7B4D2E66-ON85257036.005517E5-85257036.005542EE@ca.ibm.com>
Thanks Amy. 

+1 for the documentation in the schema so no one else need get tripped up 
by this.

Lawrence Mandel

Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814   Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
lmandel@ca.ibm.com



Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
07/06/2005 10:17 AM

To
Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject
Re: WSDL 2.0 element order enforcement in schema






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 15:31:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT