RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

elementReference is the name of a type so it would appear in the syntax.
I like messageBody better too.  Or I suppose we could just get rid of
the reference altogether, right?

 

<xs:attribute name="element" > 
        <xs:simpleType> 
                <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName"> 
                        <xs:simpleType> 
                                <xs:restriction base="xs:token"> 
                                        <xs:enumeration value="#any" /> 
                                        <xs:enumeration value="#empty"
/> 
                                </xs:restriction> 
                        </xs:simpleType> 
                </xs:union> 
        </xs:simpleType> 
</xs:attribute>

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:58 PM
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Jonathan Marsh; WS Description List;
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

 


Sanjiva, 

The XML Schema looks fine except for a couple of minor errors. Here's a
corrected version: 

        <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference" /> 

        <xs:simpleType name="elementReference"> 
                <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName"> 
                        <xs:simpleType> 
                                <xs:restriction base="xs:token"> 
                                        <xs:enumeration value="#any" /> 
                                        <xs:enumeration value="#empty"
/> 
                                </xs:restriction> 
                        </xs:simpleType> 
                </xs:union> 
        </xs:simpleType> 


However, I dislike the name of the attribute, elementReference, since
the whole point of introducing it was to allow the case where there is
no element reference. How about @messageBody or @bodyContent instead? 

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/ 



"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

03/11/2004 10:50 PM 

To

"Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Jonathan Marsh"
<jmarsh@microsoft.com> 

cc

"WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> 

Subject

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
> >