W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Examples of substitution group extending WSDL.

From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:20:28 -0700
Message-ID: <A1C7F8CC121B444CA879FB66B3268A1A03F626@usazscsmh1.cyclonecommerce.com>
To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

 Roberto Chinnici wrote 
>Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>> Results of my tinkering

>> Then I attempted the holy grail, a simple wrapper schema that would 
>> have the effect of the schema above, while importing the DSig schema 
>> without modification.  I failed in this because:
>> - Element declarations in an imported schema cannot be overridden.
>> - Redefine does not work on element declarations.
>> - There is no other way to add elements to a substitution group.

>This is bad news.

>> I rejected modifications to the instance document that would enable a

>> wrapper schema:
>> - Changing the namespace of the top level element.
>> - Introducing a wrapper element.
>Given the issue with xsi:schemaLocation described earlier, I find the 
>wrapper solution more acceptable than the one above, no matter how 
>unaesthetical and inconvenient.

I also don't sense that there is a lot of inconvenience in using a
"wrapper" element;
I would expect to find new tags for elements that are introduced with
to a substitution group head element. {Maybe I have low expectations
when it comes to 
 using schema tips and tricks, though.)

And, my aesthetic sense favors having these new wrapper element in a
distinct namespace
(in terms of the example, neither in wsdl12 or DSIG namespace) that
packages up the extension(s).
Is there something other than aesthetics or a Ockhamistic fetish 
at work in disparaging the lowly wrapper element?
Are we going to start littering the schema with "any*" constructs
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 09:20:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:30 UTC