- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:17:32 -0400
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFCC33923B.2C92197C-ON85256D66.0052B664@torolab.ibm.com>
Martin, Thx for pointing out the "official" schema. Since it uses "lax", I revise my recommendation to be "lax" in the interest of consistency. BTW, this mixup reinforces the desirability of giving the schema a more normative role in WSDL 1.2. Arthur Ryman "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 07/16/2003 06:06 PM To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org> cc: Subject: RE: Value of @processContents: Recommend "strict" Arthur, Although the schema in the WSDL 1.1 spec document does not specify a processContents value, the actual schema at http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/ uses processContents='lax' ( and has done for a long time ). processContents='lax' seems to be the 'sweet spot' here as it allows me to validate a WSDL document even if I don't have schemas for all the extensions therein. I don't want validation to fail just because I don't have an extension schema. Gudge From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Ryman Sent: 14 July 2003 11:30 To: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Value of @processContents: Recommend "strict" Since we are using wildcards for extensions instead of substitution groups, we need to decide on how extensions get validated. The <xs:any> and <xs:anyAttribute> elements have the @processContents attribute which controls validation as follows [1]: {process contents} controls the impact on ·assessment· of the information items allowed by wildcards, as follows: strict There must be a top-level declaration for the item available, or the item must have an xsi:type, and the item must be ·valid· as appropriate. skip No constraints at all: the item must simply be well-formed XML. lax If the item, or any items among its [children] if it's an element information item, has a uniquely determined declaration available, it must be ·valid· with respect to that definition, that is, ·validate· where you can, don't worry when you can't. The default value is strict. The value used in WSDL 1.1 [2] is the default, i.e. strict. Since tools need to process WSDL, it makes sense for extensions to be validated as much as possible by the XML schema validator. Therefore, we should use strict. This choice places a burden on extension authors to provide a schema for the extension, but the benefit is simplified extension processing code in tools (less need for hand-coded validity checking). [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Wildcards [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315#A4.1 Arthur Ryman
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 11:17:53 UTC