W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

Conflicts of WSDL schemas

From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:55:42 +0200
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061DA95064@uspalx20a.pal.sap-ag.de>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Cc: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Hi all,

I got the below inqury from a colleague. 

To my knowledge, http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ is the target namespace
defined by A4.1, and the two should be the same.  

Seems they have fell out of sync. Does anybody know what's going on here?
Which one is the "valid" WSDL1.1 schema?

or Am I missing anything here?


Up to now I always used the specification I found under
In this document there is also an XML-Schema for WSDL, that can be found in
A 4.1.
Now I cam across another XML-Schema for WSDL under
Unfortuantely, this schema looks very much different.
A closer look shows that both schemas are incompatible.
Indeed, both specifications allow to add self-defined subelements as
child-elements of the root-element <wsdl:definitions>.
However, according to the first schema this has to be placed at the end of
the document (behind elements like <wsdl:message>).
This is shown in the definition of the complexType definitionsType.
This comes also clear from the template shown in 2.1, as there we have the 
<-- extensibility element --> *
at the end of the document.
However, when you analyze the second schema the extensibility elements have
to be placed at the beginning.
Indeed, the complexType tDefinitions is an extension of
tExtensibleDocumented. tExtensibleDocumented declares the extensibility
elements and tDefinitions adds the concrete wsdl-elements. Hence, the
extensibility elements have to come first.
Do you know anything about this?
Can you tell me, which definition is valid?
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 14:41:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:22 UTC