W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

Re: typeDefinitions property optional?

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:46:18 -0400
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060503114618.449fc746.alewis@tibco.com>

On Wed, 3 May 2006 17:13:46 +1000
"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote:

>I thought the schema built-in types were included implicitly rather
>than explicitly?

True, but that means that the types EII is optional, not the
typeDefinitions property.

> 
>Tony Rogers
>CA, Inc
>
>________________________________
>
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonathan Marsh
>Sent: Tue 02-May-06 23:01
>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: typeDefinitions property optional?
>
>
>
>Section 2.1.2 defines the typeDefinitions property as optional, but
>then states that it contains the build-in simple types from Schema.  I
>think the result is that it's really not optional at all.  Should we
>change it to REQUIRED?
>
> 
>
>Also, we might also mention in the mapping that this is the minimum,
>contrary to the minimum suggested there.
>
> 
>
> [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com
> <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com>   ]
> [  http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes
> <http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes>   ]
>
> 
>
>


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:54:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:40 GMT