- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:25:33 -0700
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] > Sent: 04 October 2002 22:19 > To: WS-Desc WG (Public) > Subject: Re: importing docs in the same namespace > > > > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes: > > > > You could use XInclude to do that, I think we talked about that > > approach in Paris. Or we could define a wsdl:include with the same > > semantics as xsd:include ( sans chameleon include, probably > ) ( I know > > we already decided not to define wsdl:include). > > > > > > > > So, I believe this should be another case of how > > > we diverge from XSD import semantics. > > > > Apart from requiring schemaLocation what are the other > cases where we > > diverge? > > In WSDL 1.1 the XSD-like-import semantics were chosen because > that was presumed to do the right thing for what WSDL needed. > However, if it doesn't, then I see absolutely *NO* reason for > retaining that similarity. > > I don't think inclusion is what we need I agree that XInclude style inclusion is not sufficient. >- import has a much more > abstract definition than include obviously. It is certainly more abstract that XInclude. >Without import I > cannot handle the scenario where I want to include 2 WSDL > docs- both defining types/messages/portTypes and then define > bindings and a service. (We'd end up with two <types> > sections; not legal.) xsd:include ( like xsd:import ) works at the component level, not the infoset level. The main differences between the two are as follows: xsd:import, component based, other namespace, location optional xsd:include, component based, same namespace, location mandatory XInclude ( for completeness ), infoset based, same namespace, location mandatory The reasoning behind making location optional for xsd:import was that a given processor may already know about certain namespaces. The reason behind making location mandatory for xsd:include was that given a processor is already processing a document with a given targetNamespace it presumably needs some hint as to how to find the other pieces that describe said namespace. I think the cleanest solution is to spec wsdl:import and wsdl:include the same way the xsd versions work. That way things work the same way in the wsdl: section of the document as they do in any xsd: sections of the document. Gudge
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 12:26:06 UTC