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

RE: SOAP and Tool Accommodation

From: Asir S Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:03:39 -0400
To: "Conner, Wesley M" <Wesley.Conner@gs.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NEBBIAMHOMNDLFMEIEBACEPECBAA.asirv@webmethods.com>
Schema Defs in SOAP do not conform to April 7, 2000 specs. I manually
modified them and attached these files. Yes, XML Spy and Authority have
difficulty constructing proper QNames. I hope this helps.

All the best,

Asir S Vedamuthu
webMethods, Inc.
(Phone) 703-460-2513 (Fax) 703-460-2513 (E-mail) asirv@webmethods.com
URL: http://www.webmethods.com

-----Original Message-----
From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Conner, Wesley M
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11:24 AM
To: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
Subject: SOAP and Tool Accommodation


I'm hoping to use SOAP (envelope and encoding) for a current project. An
initial challenge is to work with the tools at my disposal to author XML
schemas. Both Extensibility's "XML Authority (XA)" and Altova's "XmlSpy"
complain about the following aspects of the XML Schema for SOAP v 1.1 at
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/.

Item #1: Neither recognizes the 'default' attribute on the attribute
element.

	<attribute name='root' default='0'>
		<simpleType base='boolean'>
			<pattern value='0|1'/>
		</simpleType>
	</attribute>

Item #2: Neither cares for the 'minOccurs' attribute on the attribute
element.

	<attributeGroup name='arrayAttributes'>
		<attribute ref='tns:arrayType' minOccurs='1' />
		<attribute ref='tns:offset'/>
	</attributeGroup>

I'm guessing that XA and XmlSpy simply don't support attribute qualification
(yet). Is it reasonable to copy the SOAP schema to a local web server and
weaken it ever so slightly by omitting these attributes? [That is, leverage
the xsi:schemaLocation attribute to reference my weaker copy.] This would
allow some forward motion although I'd obviously lose the desired conformity
checking on the affected attributes. If this isn't total heresy, are there
any suggestions on how best to affect this kind of tool accommodation (e.g.,
file naming)? Is there a better solution (e.g., better tool, better work
around)?

Thanks,
W. Conner


Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 13:03:11 GMT

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