- From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:29:31 -0700
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 11:30:43 UTC
+1 - using the same term for different behavior seems very dangerous! DaveH -----Original Message----- From: Don Box [mailto:dbox@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:23 AM To: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: XSD vs. WSDL import If WSDL is going to define an element whose [local name], [children] and [attributes] have a one to one correspondence to something defined in XML Schema, it seems prudent to reuse the behavior as well (especially since virtually all WSDL users are also XML Schema users). I worry about having <wsdl:import> look and smell like <xsd:import> but to not work the same way. If the WG is going to go with a single element that subsumes most of <xsd:include> and <xsd:import> functionality (except for WSDL), I would prefer to see the WG coin a new element name (perhaps Sanjiva's <wsdl:using> suggestion). DB
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 11:30:43 UTC