- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 09:41:45 +0600
- To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
The schema for WSDL 1.1 that's in the spec was done before schema went to rec. Recently (I forget exactly when), the schema located at http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ was updated to be compliant with the schema rec; hence the mismatch. I would consider the updated schema more valid. For extensibility elements the intent was always to allow them wherever. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Cc: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:55 PM 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 Sunday, 28 April 2002 00:06:07 UTC