- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:20:09 -0700
- To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thank you for the comment below, and for your patience with us in resolving it. We tracked the comment below as Issue LC65 [1]. The editors have addressed the editorial matters you highlight below in their latest drafts [3]. If you agree with our disposition of your comment, we'd like you to acknowledge it within two weeks; otherwise we will assume you are satisfied. The WG plans to enter a second (short) Last Call period in the near future, and we invite you to review that publication as well. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC65 [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc- > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 5:48 AM > To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > Subject: Editorial: imported schema vs. namespace > > > [On behalf of the XML Schema WG] > > Part 1 says: "The schema components defined in the imported schema are > available for reference by QName (see 2.18 QName resolution)." - > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#import-xsd > > If you are really trying to clone xsd semantics, then this should say: > > "The schema components defined in the imported >namespace< are > available for > reference by QName (see 2.18 QName resolution). " > > xs:import fundamentally brings into scope a namespace, not a schema. > The > schemaLocation, if present, suggests a possible sort of definitions > and > declarations that might be useful in building a schema, and only in > that > sense is a schema imported. > > On behalf of the XML Schema WG, > > Asir S Vedamuthu > asirv at webmethods dot com > http://www.webmethods.com/
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 23:20:28 UTC