W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Section 5 vs Schema

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:47:23 +0100 (CET)
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
cc: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201251646210.17838-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Rich, I understand that it is valid as long as the types "match"  
the schema. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Rich Salz wrote:

 > > The ETF discussed this issue in a recent telcon and would like to 
 > > propose a change to section 3.4 of the current editors draft[1] to 
 > > lessen the schema bias in the examples by showing the mapping from 
 > > programming language compound types to SOAP encoding.
 > 
 > 
 > great.
 > 
 > > or as follows if a schema is available
 > > 
 > > <e:Book xmlns:e="http://example.org/2001/12/books">
 > >    <e:author>Henry Ford</e:author>
 > >    <e:preface>Preface text</e:preface>
 > >    <e:intro>Henry Ford</e:intro>
 > > </e:Book>
 > 
 > 
 > If a schema is available is the following also (still) valid?
 >    <e:Book xmlns:e="http://example.org/2001/12/books"
 > 	xmlns:enc="http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding">
 >     <enc:string>Henry Ford</enc:string>
 >      <enc:string>Preface text</enc:string>
 >     <enc:string>Henry Ford</enc:string>
 >    </e:Book>
 > 
 > And various mix-and-match combinations of the two?
 > 	/r$
 > 
 > 
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 10:47:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT