- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:08:48 +0600
- To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <markn@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Hi Rich, +1 for a normative schema .. however that's not impossible while supporting XML 1.1; that's what WSDL 2.0 is going to be doing. Paul explained what we had to do to get there (I'm not nearly a schema guy to understand what we did). Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>; <paul.downey@bt.com>; "Mark Nottingham" <markn@bea.com>; <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 10:57 AM Subject: Re: New Issue: use XSD to describe the syntax [i032] > > > +1 to whether it should've been published, but now that it is > > IMO it cannot be ignored. > > It's all about trade-offs, and trading a normative schema for 1.1 is the > right way to go, especially since SOAP, are target user, doesn't support > 1.1 > /r$ > > -- > Rich Salz Chief Security Architect > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html > XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html >
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2004 05:10:25 UTC