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

RE: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 15:45:09 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E01FC649F@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 07 September 2002 04:11
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding
> 
> 
> With some reluctance, I agree with Gudge.  

I'm not quite sure how to take that ;-)

> My guess is that 
> the way to use 
> schemas will not be to do the encoding with schemas (because 
> encoding is 
> for graphs and schemas aren't), 

FWIW - the WS-I Basic Profile group has done some work on describing
graphs in XML Schema

> but someday to define a 
> restricted "tree 
> only" RPC that uses schema directly.  Very useful, the right 
> thing to do, 
> but too late for SOAP 1.2.  

And what would the difference be between 'tree-only RPC' and 'document'?

> Also, since all this is in 
> Adjuncts, we don't 
> have to rev. SOAP 1.2 to get there, just publish the 
> additional spec at 
> the right time, I think, and then do the WSDL (which gets infinitely 
> easier, I think.) 

Certainly removing encodings and just using schema descriptions directly
makes WSDL much easier.

> 
> So, given that we want graphs, I'd vote +1 and stick with 
> what we have. 

Cool, that's one vote. Any more out there?

Gudge
Received on Sunday, 8 September 2002 20:27:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT