RE: Editorial: imported schema vs. namespace

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