- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:32:50 -0000
- To: <rsalz@datapower.com>, <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Rich wrote: > a) Should we describe the specification using XML Schema? > b) Should such a schema replace the "pseudo-schema"? > c) Should such a schema be normative? > d) Should such a schema be developed alongside the spec, or should we > wait until the spec is more stable (i.e., is someone willing to track > the spec)? > > Would you agree? i'm all for providing normative schemas for each of our bindings, esp for testing purposes. that does, however, possibly raise issues regarding which version of XML would be supported .. Ignoring XML 1.1 completely could be seen as being politically incorrect given it's now a W3C recommendation .. The WSDL WG went to great lengths to abstract the types used to store informational items in their component model so as to support XML 1.0 and 1.1 and other possible serialisations. i guess we could go down a similar path and make the types in the core spec abstract, but that might not make sense to everyone. Given Schema 1.0 doesn't (yet) support XML 1.1 we would be only able to provide schemas for the SOAP and WSDL bindings for XML 1.0 anyway. Paul
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 21:32:15 UTC