- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: 30 Sep 2002 10:45:53 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 08:11, ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote: > 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. I believe that common practice in XSD are also to use postfixes notation in order to differente types and element names, so imposing this restriction in WSDL would not hurt current practices. Again, let's not make the same mistake as XSD, just because XSD happened to do it. Philippe
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 10:46:04 UTC