- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:58:42 -0700
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org>
The WG agreed to incorporate this clarification. Thanks! > -----Original Message----- > From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:22 PM > To: Jonathan Marsh > Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org; w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: wsdl:import semantics is different from xs:import > > Again writing just for myself, and similar in spirit to the quibble > raised > in my note of ealier today. Your proposed text says: > > > components imported by one of the imported > > documents are not available to the original importing > > document unless the are imported > > directly by that document. > > This is not quite true of schema, in that it implies that "components > are > imported by a document." Components are imported by a schema > processor > using most any rules it likes. One such rule is that there can be > schemaLocation hints on an import, and the processor may honor such a > hint. Note however that the effect is then pervasive. Thus, if we > have > composed into the same schema: > > In schema document 1: > > <import namespace="ns1URI" schemaLocation="docURI"/> > <element name="n" type="ns1:t" xmlns:ns1="ns1URI"/> > > In schema document 2: > > <import namespace="ns1URI"/> > <element name="n" type="ns1:t" xmlns:ns1="ns1URI"/> > > It >MUST< be the case that either both references to ns1:t succeed or > neither succeed. That's true regardless of whether the reason that > the > component for type ns1:t was brought in by following that first > schemaLocation hint. The principle purpose of import is not to > import > components, but rather to license references to components in the > namespace. I wonder if you might do better to say: > > "The WSDL import element information item is > modeled after the XML Schema import element > information item (see [XML Schema: Structures], > section 4.2.3 "References to schema components > across namespaces"). Specifically, it can be used > to import components from WSDL descriptions that > do not share a target namespace with the importing > document. > > As with XML schema, each document making references > to components in a given (foreign) namespace MUST > have an import for that namespace (but not necessarily > providing a schemaLocation identifying the document > in which the referenced component is declared). In > other respects, the visibility of components is > pervasive; if two WSDL documents import the same > namespace then they will have access to the same > components from the imported namespace (I.e. > regardless of which, if any, schemaLocations > are provided on the respective imports.)" > > That's my understanding of how XML Schema works. Presuming I have > that > right, I believe the position of the Schema WG would be that you > should > either change your description to indeed agree with schema's behavior, > or > else back off on the claim that WSDL is indeed modeled on Schema. > > I should say that I think we're all grateful for your efforts both to > line > up with our behavior and to get the details right. I'm sorry that I > did > not notice these nuances in your redrafting earlier. I'm sure other > members of the Schema WG will weigh in to the extent they disagree > with my > analysis. I hope this is helpful. > > Noah > > > -------------------------------------- > Noah Mendelsohn > IBM Corporation > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > 1-617-693-4036 > -------------------------------------- > > >
Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 14:59:04 UTC