Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

Looks good to me too .. however I'll let Arthur indicate an IBM
position as I can barely spell schiema let alone make value
judgements about the goodness of using unions.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150


>
> I applaud the elegance of this proposal. 8-)
> I hope it will be accepted.
>
> Jacek
>
> On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 18:55, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Issues 146 [.1] and 150 [.2] were inadvertently left off the FTF agenda.
> > Sorry my bad.  Here's a simple proposal for addressing these issues,
> > assuming we find merit in adding this functionality.
> >
> > Issue 146 Should WSDL be able to describe an operation with *anything*
> > in the message? [.1]
> >
> > Issue 150 Indicating empty bodies [.2]
> >
> > When using XML SchemaS, The element attribute points to a QName of a
> > GED, preventing either empty bodies, or unconstrained content.  Special
> > values of the element attribute could indicate these conditions.
> >
> > Status quo:
> >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="xs:QName" use="optional" />
> >
> > Proposal:
> >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference" use="optional" />
> >
> >   <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
> >     <xs:union>
> >       <xs:simpleType memberTypes="xs:QName">
> >         <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
> >           <xs:enumeration value="#any"/>
> >           <xs:enumeration value="#empty"/>
> >         </xs:restriction>
> >       </xs:simpleType>
> >     </xs:union>
> >   </xs:simpleType>
> >
> > (I hope I have got that syntax right.  Should be enough to spark
> > discussion anyway...)
> >
> > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x146
> > [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x150
> >

Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 22:56:30 UTC