- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:25:18 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <02f501c37e12$37aa88e0$fe2b000a@beasys.com>
In general, I quite agree. Fuller extensibility is better. However, there is one really cool aspect of XSD's extensibility model. The xsd:appInfo wildcard is namespace="##any", which means that extensions in the wsdl namespace (targetnamespace) could be included. And the only way that determinism allows optional extensions in the targetnamespace is through a container element like appInfo. Schema V.next could be backwards and/or forwards compatible with schema 1.0 in the same namespace. WSDL 1.N can't be compatible with WSDL 1.2 (assuming it's still 1.2 :-) unless the WSDL 1.2 elements stay in the wsdl 1.2 ns and the WSDL 1.N extensions are in a different namespace. IMO, Schema has a cleaner and better versioning strategy that WSDL because of this simple "tweak". I personally think that a combination of the approaches is the best fit - allow ##other as wsdl currently does, and also provide an appinfo like element with <any targetnamespace="##targetnamespace"/> at the end of each element's type definition for permitting compatible changes. As an aside, I find very frustrating that Schema doesn't make it simpler to allow full extensibility in a simpler manner. grumble. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:46 AM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: RE: proposal for improving <documentation> > > > > [Speaking personally. I just can't keep quiet on this one!] > > XSD has xsd:annotation/xsd:appInfo because they don't allow extension > elements in arbitrary spots. We do, so we can add machine-readable > information anywhere in WSDL. The extra complexity in the syntax is > therefore completely unnecessary, and not backward compatible > with WSDL > 1.1. I have always thought Schema's extensibility model was > needlessly > Byzantine and hope we won't make the same mistake. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] > On > > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:45 AM > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > Subject: proposal for improving <documentation> > > > > > > I'd like to propose that we change <documentation> to be > > consistent with XSD's <annotation> element: > > > > <xsd:annotation> > > <xsd:documentation> human readable stuff </xsd:documentation> > > <xsd:appInfo> machine readable stuff </xsd:appInfo> > > </xsd:annotation> > > > > So, I propose we drop <wsdl:documentation> and replace it > > with: > > > > <wsdl:annotation> > > <wsdl:documentation> human readable stuff > </wsdl:documentation> > > <wsdl:appInfo> machine readable stuff </wsdl:appInfo> > > </wsdl:annotation> > > > > This allows tools to use this hook and furthermore we'd > > be consistent with XSD, which is said to be a good thing ;-). > > > > Sanjiva. > > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 14:28:46 UTC