- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:18:12 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
+1
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
> Both WSDL and XML Schema have the notion of a target namespace. In XML
> Schema this property can be absent, denoting constructs that are not
> affiliated with a particular namespace. This was necessary because XML
> Schema describes XML instances, and elements in an XML instance may be
> unqualified ( not affiliated with a namespace ).
>
> The question I would like to pose is 'Does it makes sense to allow the
> target namespace property of WSDL components to be absent?'. And I will
> argue that it does not. WSDL does not describe XML instances, it
> describes messages, portTypes, bindings and services. I think it makes
> sense to mandate that these contructs always be affiliated with a
> namespace.
>
> To this end, I propose that we mandate the 'targetNamespace' AII on the
> definitions EII. And that we modify the spec to say that the value of
> the AII must be a non-zero length URI.
>
> Changes to spec
>
> Section 3.1
>
> Add a bullet between current bullets 2 and 3;
>
> * A target namespace attribute information item amongst its [attributes]
> as described below
>
>
> Section 3.1.1
>
> Add a third bullet
>
> * A type of anyURI in the http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema namespace
>
> Add prose
>
> The value of the targetNamespace attribute information item MUST NOT be
> the empty string.
>
>
>
> Gudge
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 05:18:49 UTC