Re: Conflicts of WSDL schemas

There were several errors reported on the first schemas (those included
with the WSDL spec). I think most (or many) of them were corrected in the
new set, released later under http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/. Apparently
other were introduced... Still, I believe this set one is much closer to be
correct, but it may not be close enough :-)

In case of doubt the specification text and examples should be the
definitive guide. Regarding the problem that is mentioned below, the
template of Section 2.1 should be followed, though I personally would
prefer to have extensibility enabled *anywhere* directly under
<definitions> (before, after, in the middle).

Regards

Paco

"Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>@w3.org on 04/26/2002 01:55:42 PM

Sent by:    www-ws-desc-request@w3.org


To:    www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc:    "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'Jonathan Marsh'"
       <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Subject:    Conflicts of WSDL schemas



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?

Regards,
Kevin

>>>
Up to now I always used the specification I found under
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.
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
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/.
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 15:46:11 UTC