- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:32:40 -0400
- To: Patrick.Hung@csiro.au
- Cc: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
On Tuesday 13 May 2003 05:39, Patrick.Hung@csiro.au wrote: > Based on your XForm example [2], I am <simply/> creating a sample WSDL > document > for the registry's "register" service as follows: Patrick, the service description is true to the scenario, but as I'm not a WSDL expert, what led you to include the my:Privacy element as a child of the wsdl:definitions? Section 2.1.2 states: Zero or more namespace qualified element information items amongst its [children]. Such element information items MUST be a member of one of the element substitution groups allowed at the top-level of a WSDL document as described in 6. Language Extensibility. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030303/#Definitions_XMLRep So if I understand the WSDL extension model, we would also have to have our own schema that includes a redefinition of globalExt or base my:Privacy on the ExtensibilityElement complexType? (I don't understand this myself yet and haven't found a good example.) Also, I presume that our WSDL extension is optional. Privacy is not optional at the point of solicitation, but since we are saying a WSDL declaration is (usefully) redundant, I don't think we need to argue that a WSDL processor must understand our extension to even process the description.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 16:45:55 UTC