RE: Generic Property Processor Proposal That Achieves Readability and Validation

Nit point, but what is the localname "propertySchema" supposed to
signify?  The semantics is "associate QNames in this namespace(s) with
WSDL properties."  So I don't see where schemas come in other than that
the proposal is more amenable to schema (or other types of) validation.

Which got me thinking about alternate syntaxes.  I came to wonder if we
even need this declaration.  Users not equipped with proper tools are
sure to screw it up fairly often (usually by omitting the declaration).
Sometimes a user will incorrectly mark an extension namespace as a
property namespace. Presumably such errors are simply ignored by the
underlying layer.  If so, then inadvertently marking ALL extension
namespaces as properties will probably not cause severe problems.  If we
simply make all extension namespaces property namespaces by default, we
don't need to declare anything.  The underlying layer would pick off
those properties that made sense to it.

I'm sure Glen will have something to say about this ;-).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 9:36 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Generic Property Processor Proposal That Achieves
Readability
> and Validation
> 
> 
> Small correction. The example syntax should be:
> 
> <wsdl:propertySchema
> namespace="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/"/>
> 
> and NOT:
> 
> <wsdl:propertySchema
> namespace="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/Action"/>
> 
> -- Arthur Ryman

Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 15:32:31 UTC