- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:54:36 -0500
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Gudge, > Was discussed at FTF: > > <xs:complexType name='foo'> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name='a' /> > <xs:element name='b' /> > <xs:element name='c' /> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:complexType> > > <wsdl:input type='foo' /> What is 'foo' the type of though? Wouldn't it be the type of the SOAP:Body element? If so it conflicts with the already existing XSD type of SOAP:Body .. one wouldn't be able to validate with this for example. (Maybe I didn't understand the answer.) > Alternatively use named model groups: > > <xs:group name='foo'> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name='a' /> > <xs:element name='b' /> > <xs:element name='c' /> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:group> > > <wsdl:input group='foo' /> Hmm. I don't know enough about groups to know what that would mean .. does this amount to saying that the input can be described as a type, element *or* group now? That seems to be making things worse, not better. > soap:header already refers directly to element/type. No, to a message. (?) > Personally I'd model attachments using an element decl and figure out > the actual serialization in the binding. How would that relate to the <wsdl:input type=> thing? Where would it go I mean. Also, what would you put as the type of the element decl? Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 11:56:56 UTC