RE: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of "defini tions"?

The point is to make sure examples are consistent with the schema - Just try
XML Spy to validate this example against the WSDL11 schema, it will tell you
that the file is not valid. 

If element order is not important, the schema should reflect that.

Regards,  Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:39 PM
To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of
"definitions"?



I would like to propose that we indicate that the order of child
elements of <definitions> is immaterial and close this issue. Given
that we have agreed to use QName references always, this seems to
be the obvious choice.

Sanjiva.

  <issue>
    <issue-num>43</issue-num>
    <title>Does order matter for the child elements of
"definitions"?</title>
    <locus>Spec</locus>
    <requirement>n/a</requirement>
    <priority>Editorial</priority>
    <topic></topic>
    <status>Active</status>
    <originator><a href="mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com">Kevin
Liu</a></originator>
    <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
    <description>
    [<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0023.html">ema
il</a>]
    [see also issue #10]
    <pre>Section 3.1 SOAP Examples, example 3 lists &lt;types&gt;
as the last element under &lt;definitions&gt;. This is inconsistent
with the schema where &lt;type&gt; is defined as the second of the
sequenced elements of the "definitionsType"; similar issue with
section 4.1 HTTP GET and POST Binding example 6 where &lt;binding&gt;
is put after &lt;service&gt;

References:
 Section 3.1 SOAP Examples, example 3
    Section 4.1 HTTP GET and POST Binding example 6
 A 4.1 WSDL Schema</pre>
    </description>
    <proposal>
    </proposal>
    <resolution>
    </resolution>
  </issue>

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 22:10:01 UTC