W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2003

RE: SOAP Schema

From: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:02:03 -0500
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Adonis Amore" <infoletter@myrealbox.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5F57C4BE.63463137-ON85256CD2.00735499@lotus.com>

Don't we need:

<xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
  <xs:element ref='tns:Fault' />
  <xs:element ref='tns:Envelope' maxOccurs='unbounded' />
  <xs:element ref='tns:Header' maxOccurs='unbounded' />
  <xs:element ref='tns:Body' maxOccurs='unbounded' />
  <xs:any namespace='##other' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded' />

In other words, don't we allow more than one child of the body? 

Actually, I have a deeper concern.  While I would generally discourage 
anyone from misusing our namespace, I'm not convinced this is the place to 
enforce the restriction.  In other words. I think I should be able to 


Furthermore, we don't even rule out sending a Fault with other elements, 
we just indicate that it won't be recognized as a fault.  No doubt, we 
could change that, but it's the compromise we adopted and I don't want to 
go back through CR for something like this.

All things considered, I think our original schema is the best compromise. 
 I believe it matches the prose in the case of both Fault and non-Fault 
boby child elements.

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 16:37:06 UTC

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