W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2000

RE: DR702 Requirement for Evolution

From: Octav Chipara <ochipara@cse.unl.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:25:31 -0600
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>, Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.05.10011131623260.5343616-100000@cse.unl.edu>

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> > I would agree with Jean, we have to keep everything as simple
> > as possible.
> > Using schemas, which they do not have currently a lot of support, we
> > should make this optional. If you want to develop small
> > application you
> > should not impose to the application to verify the input against of a
> > schema. This would prove very beneficial in a client-server
> > model, where
> > the client has to have a very small footprint!
> 
> Note here that requirements 400 [1] and 401 [2] currently says that no
> one should be forced to use XML Schema in a message (data representation
> and envelope are orthogonal) but if a "schema" language is going to be
> used it must be XML Schema (data representation must support using XML
> Schema simple and complex types).
> 
> This is also the model described by SOAP in section 5 of the SOAP/1.1 spec.
> 
> I don't think the discussion of whether XML schema currently has a lot of
> support or not belongs on this list.
> 

Henrik, I know, I just wanted to make sure that nobody will understand
that the validation of a message is enforced by the requirements. This is
the only point that I wanted to clear up, and probably it should be
addressed in the requirements specifically (say it not infer it). That's
all ...

- Octav
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 17:25:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT