Re: Issue: SOAP Data Model Schema language may be necessary (related to #231)

>
>
>The issue then moved to asking whether all the array member EII 
>names have to be the same - that's currently the issue #231.
>
Why is it the case that these are not the same? Using schema munging it 
is generally possible to generate a schema for soap-enc that can be used 
in a validating parser, *except* for arrays. If the name was fixed then 
this would resolve that problem. Currently there is no way to munge a 
soap-enc schema into a validatable schema because of the array element 
names being allowed to differ from the schema definition. I feel that 
soap implementors should not have to be concerned with validating a 
message that can be described by the schema language when a validating 
parser could do it instead. Most toolkits are still lacking full 
validation simply because they cannot delegate it to a parser.

I always wondered why they are allowed to be different and what benefit 
it brings? Such a simple change would also make the message more 
predictable and also possibly aid interoperability (at least it wouldn't 
hinder it).

Pete