- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: 03 Mar 2003 14:50:07 +0100
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Gudge, if a binding is allowed to say (e.g. using an XPath) which infoset items defined by a schema are serialized where (e.g. an attachment, or a header), I'm reminded strongly of the "encoded" style that we dropped. What you seem to be saying is that the binding needn't follow the XML Schema fully; or you're defining a serialization of an infoset different from XML 1.0, but sort of implicitly. So, the logical step would be to define the new infoset serialization explicitly, and I think there would be a big backlash because of potential interop and/or simplicity issues. I believe that if we describe something using XML Schema, it'd better be XML. 8-) Best regards, Jacek Kopecky Systinet Corporation http://www.systinet.com/ On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 19:39, Martin Gudgin wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Umit Yalcinalp [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com] > > Sent: 27 February 2003 17:29 > > To: Martin Gudgin > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > Subject: Re: Action 2003-01-21 for Umit > > <SNIP/> > > > Before starting to debate the rest, lets agree on the common > > assumptions first. > > > > In the January f2f, the idea explored was that when a single > > schema replaces the message construct, the concept of parts > > was going to be moved from the abstract to the concrete > > binding. For some of us, having *multiple* parts is necessary > > in the binding. > > By which you mean what? Surely a binding just describes concretely what > a message looks like on the wire... Are you just asking for the ability > to say 'this element goes in the body, that element goes in a header'? > Or 'this element goes in the body, that element goes as an attachment'? > Or are you asking for more than that? > > > So the exercise was to come up with schema > > examples and explore how they will exhibit themselves in the binding! > > That much I understood, but the discussion of 'parts' confused me. > > > > > > Given this assumption, the idea is to explore how the parts > > are going to reappear in the binding as they would be > > dissappearing from the abstract. So a "mapping" is necessary. > > So, hopefully, by 'mapping' you mean specifying which > elements/attributes go where... > > > > > My task was to present complex schema examples. You guys were > > going to show the mapping in the binding. Am I missing something? > > Obviously I was... > > Gudge
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 08:50:17 UTC