RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

At 02:17 PM 01/05/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>XML Schema provides a rich, well-understood language for expressing
>choices, sequences, optional, repeated, etc. constructs. It does not
>seem like a good use of the WG time to re-invent such a mechanism.
>
>Are there any interesting arguments against removing the message element
>and making the operation within a port type point directly to an XML
>Schema global element declaration?

One common practice is to use WSDL as a representation of 3gl code
and to interconvert between the 2. Using schema directly instead of
the message parts structure in WSDL would encourage the use of data
models that couldn't be treated this way and lead to calls for
some mechanism to constrain the data model (such as "message parts")

Of course, this same applies for most languages if the message parts
acquire a cardinality option other than 0..1 and 1..1

Grahame

Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 20:34:28 UTC