RE: Arguments for keeping R120

I'm not sure that what XSD did was actually bad. It forces us to be
explicit about what we want to refer to. You have to have context to
know what it is at the end of a reference. If you don't have context,
you can't really know ( and maybe you don't care ). What XSD does ( and
WSDL follows suit ) is state that the context of the reference
determines the type. And WSDL uses the element and type attributes for
different things right now. I'm not sure how having a single attribute
would actually help processors.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> Sent: 27 September 2002 14:49
> To: Arthur Ryman
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Arguments for keeping R120
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Monday, 30 September 2002 10:53:21 UTC