RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second inline schema?

I'm not sure I understand how is WSDL 2.0 clearer in this regard than WSDL 1.1 ? 

My concern is unless the rules are absolutely clear on how to reference across in-line schemas, it will require profiling out again in 2.0.

I assume the WS-I prohibited importing an in-line schema namespace because the 1.1 rules were unclear, not because of some other interoperability issue ?

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
Sent: 19 October 2003 15:23
To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C; umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com; ryman@ca.ibm.com
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second
inline schema?


The BP is defined over WSDL 1.1, and it's true that in WSDL 1.1 the schema processing rules are unclear.

I think WSDL 2.0 is much clearer in this regard and see no real reason to prohibit references across in-line schemas.

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> Sent: 19 October 2003 08:57
> To: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com; ryman@ca.ibm.com
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a 
> second inline schema?
> 
> Ümit wrote:
> 
> 		I would rather see inlined schemas to 
> dissappear altogether from WSDL. Instead of discussing the 
> semantics and the interpretation of inlined schemas within 
> WSDL, the problem can be left to Schema completely. 
> 		
> 
> I've thus far found stand-alone WSDLs very useful, but if the 
> rules are unclear how to reference between in-line schemas, 
> and the BP effectively prohibits it, then I agree: we should 
> consider removing inline schemas from WSDL.
>  
> Paul
>  
>  
> 
>

Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 03:42:43 UTC