- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 06:46:36 +0600
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <ygoland@bea.com>, "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
+1 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> To: <ygoland@bea.com>; "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>; "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:17 PM Subject: RE: Second level xs:import > > The *design* limitation, was that schema wanted people to be *explicit* > about namespaces they wanted to use. So, in order to reference > components in namespace foo, a schema MUST have an import for namespace > foo ( or itself be a schema for namespace foo ). > > I think it is a reasonable design decision to make for WSDL too. > > Gudge > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Goland > > Sent: 26 January 2004 17:30 > > To: 'Amelia A Lewis'; 'David Orchard' > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Second level xs:import > > > > > > While I can appreciate the wisdom in re-use, re-use should > > only be done with open eyes and full understanding. Do we > > know the technical reason why the restriction is there? If > > not then we should either find out or remove the restriction. > > Thanks, > > Yaron > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On > > > Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis > > > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:05 PM > > > To: David Orchard > > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > > Subject: Re: Second level xs:import > > > > > > > > > > > > Because that works the same way that schema import does, and that's > > > what it's modeled on. > > > > > > Amy! > > > On Jan 26, 2004, at 2:54 PM, David Orchard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it illegal to reference items that are included in an > > > > imported/included schema vis xs:import? (per section 3 of part 1) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 19:45:51 UTC