RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] writes:
>Secondly, the parts themselves may be of types that are not XML
>Schema types. While XSD can be used for such cases, its again
>a second class way to describe those. For example, if the type
>is MIME image/gif, then the WSDL 1.1 part mechanism lets you say
>that with something like <part name=p1 mimetype=image/gif/>.
>That is, it records, in a first class manner, the fact that the
>part is a MIME thing of a certain type. 

It would be nice if common interoperable representational types were
described in a way that could be leveraged across all the XML
activities, even those that do not use WSDL. Of course, if there wasn't
a way to define "foreign" types in XML Schema, working groups like ours
would be forced to come with their own "first class" definitions, but
that doesn't seem to be the case any longer.

--Jeff