RE: Target namespace in WSDL

PLEASE do! 

Dave Hollander

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:23 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Target namespace in WSDL



Sure

Gudge

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Marsh 
Sent: 26 June 2002 20:21
To: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Target namespace in WSDL


Given that relative URIs are undefined for use as XML namespace URIs,
should we mandate that this URI be absolute instead of merely non-zero
length?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:08 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Target namespace in WSDL
> 
> 
> 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 16:47:05 UTC