- From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:36:52 -0700
- To: "'Ramkumar Menon'" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comment. The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a CR045 [1]. The Working Group agreed to remove assertion #Schema-0019-summary, so there will no longer be any requirement that schemas have a target namespace. The latest editor's draft [2] has been updated to reflect this change. Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of October, we will assume you agree with the resolution of this issue. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR045 [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content- type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#inlining-xsd Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Ramkumar Menon > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:50 PM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: Inline schemas with no target namespace > > > Hi All, > > Would appreciate yor thoughts on the following. > > Section 3.1.2.1 of the Core Langage spec says > "WSDL 2.0 modifies the XML Schema definition of the xs:schema element > information item to make this attribute information item required". > > There is a scenario where I have an existing XSD that I am intending > to re-use while designing the WSDL. The XSD has no target namespace, > and has a bunch of elements and attributes defined within it. What it > also does is to import a couple of XSDs that have a non-null target > namespace. the wsdl intends to define the message parts to point to > one of the nodes defined in the imported XSDs within the nonamespace > XSD. The nodes that had been directly defined in the no-namespace XSD > are not used by the WSDL, but are consumed by other applications. > In this case, do yo think that it would be "really" invalid to inline > such an XSD into the WSDL ? I was wondering that atleast > theoretically, this should be possible. The question is - "Do we need > to make some statements around this in the spec" ? > > > regards, > Menon. > > -- > Shift to the left, shift to the right! > Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte! > > -Ramkumar Menon > A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 16:37:03 UTC