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

Re: SOAP and Schema

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:46:19 -0400
To: "Brian Hannan" <bhannan@airflash.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1BBDA336.6CF4831A-ON8525697B.006760AC@lotus.com>
SOAP does not require a schema and does not specify (require) automatic 
validation of either sent or received messages. 

For situations in which such validation is desireable, various SOAP 
implementations can choose to provide it as a layered service.  It is in 
no case an aspect of SOAP conformance (to the extent that SOAP conformance 
is carefully specified at all.)

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Brian Hannan" <bhannan@airflash.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
10/17/00 02:23 PM

        To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus)
        Subject:        SOAP and Schema

After reading the SOAP 1.1 spec I'm a little unclear as to whether or
not SOAP will permit schemaless types.  Well, I guess I'm really
concerned about two levels of "schemaless" operation.

The first level which I know SOAP supports is placing the type directly
into an element via "xsi:type".  As a result, all my SOAP param
information would be self describing and not require an explicit
separate schema file.

The second level which I'm uncertain of is having elements that have no
explicit type decl and no schema file.  For example, having
"<somecrap>23s6C *e 3-3 s</somecrap>" in a SOAP param with no schema
file.  Essentially SOAP would have to treat this is a blob that it
cannot look into.

Even if the 2nd case is possible, do current SOAP impls puke on it?  In
other words, do SOAP impls want explicit type information for every
param they deal with?

Thanks for the help.

Brian Hannan
Chief Admiral of Uncle Jam's Navy

"One nation under a groove, gettin' down just for the FUNK of it."

Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 14:51:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC