- From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:33:17 -0400
- To: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Cc: mgudgin@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:59:11 -0700 Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> wrote: > Amelia A. Lewis wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:11:09 -0700 > > Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > >>This text first appeared in wsdl12.xml CVS revision 1.34.2.2 as part > >>of the types work ( it was subsequently merged into the main branch > >in>version 1.35 ). It was part of the write up that Amy did, I think. > >>Note that this ONLY applies to schemas that DO NOT have a target > >>namespace. It cannot be used to override the namespace of an > >imported>schema document that DOES have a target namespace. The text > >>essentially means that all schemas constructs are qualified. I can't > >>remember the rationale for allowing this, perhaps Amy will have > >better>powers of recall. > > > > > > As I recall, this deals with XML Schemas that were originally > > designed for use as "chameleons", and it also provides a pattern for > > use with other schema languages (for instance, the DTD example uses > > a similar technique to place all of the elements imported into a > > single namespace). > > Yes, but the dtd:import element is brand new, so we can assign it an > arbitrary semantics. It worries me that we're redefining how the > xsd:import construct works. This new functionality doesn't seem to > be too well defined either. > > For instance, wouldn't the clause "as if it contained a corresponding > targetNamespace declaration" be likely to break the references between > components in the imported schema? After all, if I did literally what > the spec says, i.e. read the schema in, ran a transform on it to set > its targetNamespace attribute to the desired value, then processed the > resulting document per the XML Schema spec, I'd most likely run into > some invalid references. Entirely possible, with a complex schema. Solution is to namespace the schema internally. If it isn't editable, and doesn't have a namespace, and breaks when a namespace is imposed, it's not usable. > By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "chameleons". Could you > clarify that? No. Google for it; it's a sufficiently complex topic that we don't need to go into it here. Amy! > > Thanks, > Roberto > > > As Gudge says, I believe that this is simply intended to force > > schemas lacking namespaces into a namespace. The principle is > > simplicity: if you're going to refer to components of a schema by > > namespace, it ought to be the same as the namespace that labels the > > import. But I believe the language was specifically chosen to avoid > > allowing chameleons. > > > > Amy! > > > >>I would note that this text was reviewed as part of the types work > >in>January 2003 and was agreed by the WG. That said, I don't feel > >>strongly about it and would be happy for us to open an issue to > >>claridy this point. > >> > >>Gudge > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > >>>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Chinnici > >>>Sent: 16 September 2003 01:06 > >>>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > >>>Subject: Question on xsd:import > >>> > >>> > >>>It's been about a year since we last talked about imports. In > >>>section 3.1.1.1 of part 1 of the spec I found this sentence > >>>describing how xsd:import works (the text in square brackets is > >>>mine): > >>> > >>>"If the [imported] schema does not have a targetNamespace > >>>AII, then the namespace specified by the namespace AII [of > >>>the xsd:import EII inside the wsdl:type EII] is applied to > >>>all components of the schema as if it contained a > >>>corresponding targetNamespace declaration." > >>> > >>>This looks very different from what XML Schema does. It seems > >>>that to honor this clause a WSDL processor would need to use > >>>a specially rigged XML Schema processor that allows for this > >>>namespace overriding to happen. > >>> > >>>Can someone refresh my memory as to when we approved the text > >>>above and what its rationale was? > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Roberto > >>> > >>>-- > >>>Roberto Chinnici > >>>Java Web Services > >>>Sun Microsystems, Inc. > >>>roberto.chinnici@sun.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:25:21 UTC