- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:38:23 +0600
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Jonathan, > [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. Good point. However, what I was looking for was a way to distinguish between arbitrary extensions that are intended for "regular" processing by the processor vs. "hints" or "documentation" kind of hints which are intended as additional information for some processor which cares, but nothing that would break the understanding of the full WSDL. Yes you could argue there proper use of wsdl:required is the way to separate the two, but I think there's a subtle difference between "documentation" kind of extensions and other extensions. > 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. :-) OK so given this valuable experience, how about if we loosen the wording on <documentation> to not insist that its intended for human consumption? The XSD type is currently mixed, which is fine as it allows both human consumable stuff as well as machine processable stuff. If we relax the wording a bit to say that that's to be used for documentation purposes, whether for human or machine consumption (and hence we have mixed content) that would be ok I think. I'm by no means looking for ways to make this beast more complex than needed. The problem that motivated this was to have an architected way to associate a UML model with a WSDL document, for example. Documentation is the right "level" of association as it is indeed documentation meant for humans or tools driven by humans .. hence my original note. So if we loosen the wording one could do something like this: <operation ...> ... <documentation> <xxx:uml-model location="..."/> </documentation> </operation> Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 05:39:00 UTC