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

Re: fault/detail

From: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 03:12:08 +0100
Message-ID: <001401c22f92$db16f240$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Pete Hendry" <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Strictly speaking 'qualified' means 'has a non-empty [namespace name]
property'. So no, an element defined in a schema with no targetNamespace is
not qualified.

The problem with schema docs without targetNamespace attrs is exactly the
same as for instance documents containing only unqualified elements; how do
I know what I've got...

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Hendry" <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: fault/detail


>
> Is an element which has its definition in the no-namespace schema not
> qualified? My interpretation would be that such an element is qualified
> with no-namespace (the element which defines it can be found from the
> no-namespace uri). I would say the rule is that the element name must be
> able to uniquely lead "directly" (i.e. with no special interpretation
> from a parser) to its definition.
>
> Pete
>
> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
> > Pete,
> > the case is exactly equal for all three cases - Body entries,
> >Header entries, Detail entries.
> > In any case you can have a no-target-namespace schema to account
> >for unqualified entries. So we can achieve consistency either
> >way. My preference is to mandate qualification, as I indicated in
> >the last quoted sentence using other words.
> > Best regards,
> >
> >                   Jacek Kopecky
> >
> >                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
> >                   http://www.systinet.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Pete Hendry wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> > >
> > > > In fact, why is it necessary that Body entries be qualified?
> > > >
> > >
> > > For validation. It is required that the element name in the body be
> > > resolvable to a schema element definition (assuming schema as the type
> > > system of course) so that validation can proceed on the body contents.
> > > Because the body is defined as <any> either there must be an xsi:type
on
> > > all the body elements (which is not currently required - and not
> > > possible for rpc) or the element name must be resolvable.
> > >
> > > Keep it qualified!
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Same for header entries. 8-) If anyone is worried their name
> > > >could be conflictful, they would namespace-qualify it. 8-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Same again if you want validation (which the service provider decides
> > > rather than the client so you don't want the option of non-qualified
> > > header entries being given to the client).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm for consistency here, and it seems the easier way to achieve
> > > >it will be to change Fault/Detail/* rules. 8-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again for detail entries, where their names should allow finding their
> > > element definition in the schema. They should only be unqualified if
> > > their schema definition is in the no-namespace-schema.
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 22:12:53 GMT

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