- From: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 08:11:24 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Phillipe,
I guess I was unclear. I am not saying XSD is a good example. I am saying
that XSD has the same problem as WSDL because a QName in XSD could refer to
both a type and an element.
My question was, "Will XSD come up with a solution that satisifies the URI
requirement?" and, if so, "Shouldn't WSDL (and any other spec) follow the
same approach to avoid a profusion of solutions?"
An example of a solution is "Make all QNames unique." but that is probably
unacceptable due to the common practice in XSD of using the same same for
related types and elements.
Maybe Eric has a prefered solution in mind.
Arthur Ryman
phone: 905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: 905-413-2323, TL 969-2323
fax: 905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/~ryman/
Philippe Le
Hegaret To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
<plh@w3.org> cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Sent by: Subject: Re: Arguments for keeping R120
www-ws-desc-reque
st@w3.org
09/27/2002 05:48
PM
On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 17:03, ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
> WSDL syntax is modelled on XSD in the sense that in XSD you can have a
type
> and an element that have the same name. What is the recommended solution
> for XSD? Shouldn't WSDL follow that for simplicity?
And we ended up having a type attribute and an element attribute in the
WSDL part element, so I don't think that following XSD here sets a good
example at all. A proposal for simplicity [1] advocates to add a
complexType wrapper element construction in WSDL in order to eliminate
the element attribute. We cannot change XSD but we can still change
WSDL.
Philippe
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0055.html
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2002 13:08:14 UTC