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

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

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:40:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB04C51C6E@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I do not think that moving away from inline Schema is a good thing.  This would fly in the face of existing practice.

I like the restrictions that the BP has made to WSDL 1.1 (Schema import for Schema, wsdl import for WSDL).  We should make sure 2.0 says something similar if it doesn't already.

I think we should make sure that 2.0 is clear that multiple inline schema fragments are allowed and should be supported by processors.

Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 3:57 AM
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.
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 11:40:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:35 UTC