RE: New issue: XML1.1 and WSDL 2.0 schemas

i think we have to work not to preclude to possibility of WSDL 2.0 
documents being serialised as XML 1.1, since hopefully WSDL could 
continue to exist in a world should XML 1.1, or other unforeseen
serialisations (heresy!) become the norm. 
 
Though i can't say i'm under pressure to publish interfaces with 
element names written in  Mongolian, Yi, Cambodian, Amharic, 
Dhivehi, Burmese or sets with the "Noah"[1] glyph yet! [2]
 
There is a problem with our normative use of Schema 1.0, but Schema 
1.1 is being developed now and ISTR they are considering XML 1.1 too. 
 
i guess a WSDL 2.0 / XML1.1 document could import or include a
Schema 1.1 / XML 1.0 document, but that raises another issue:
 
   is it valid for a XML 1.1 document to import or include a XML 1.0 
   document (and vice versa)?
 
This is all separate to the question of messages being described - should we 
describe that a binding supports, say,  SOAP messages serialised in XML 1.0
and 1.1 - this seems important to me since i don't know of an interoperable way
of negotiating the XML version.
 
Paul
 
[1]  Noah Mendelson's TP quick-fire talk!
[2] http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml/chapters/03.html


 -----Original Message----- 
 From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Jean-Jacques Moreau 
 Sent: Thu 06/05/2004 11:28 
 To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
 Cc: Yves Lafon; Herve Ruellan 
 Subject: New issue: XML1.1 and WSDL 2.0 schemas
 
 


 We seem to be having the same issue with XML 1.1 that the XMLP WG is
 just facing.
 
 Our WSDL schemas are normative (see quoted text below). However, XML
 Schema is not compatible with XML 1.1 (and may not be for some time to
 come). This means that a WSDL 2.0 document cannot be authored using XML
 1.1, otherwise it would be schema invalid.
 
 There may also be subtle interactions with the <type/> section. Could a
 WSDL 2.0 XML 1.1 document contain (or reference, for that matter), a XML
 Schema 1.0 type description? I have not looked into that issue deeply.
 
 Regarding (at least) the former issue, we seem to be having two options:
 
 1) Don't do anything and accept that WSDL 2.0 documents will never be
 written using XML 1.1 (this may be ok).
 
 2) Make the schemas non-normative and tighten up the spec as
 appropriate, to ensure we provide a similar level of correctness (the
 current infoset description may be ok already).
 
 I don't have any strong preference either way. I just thought the WG
 should be warned before being faced with the difficult position XMLP is
 in now, since SOAP 1.2 is already a Recommendation and can hardly be
 changed.
 
 Regards,
 
 Jean-Jacques.
 
 <part1 where="section 1.2">
 A normative XML Schema [XML Schema: Structures
 <cid:part1.03040200.01040909@crf.canon.fr>], [XML Schema: Datatypes
 <cid:part2.00050100.02080706@crf.canon.fr>] document for the
 "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" namespace can be found at
 http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl. WSDL documents that do NOT conform to
 this schema are not valid WSDL documents. WSDL documents that DO conform
 to this schema and also conform to the other constraints defined in this
 specification are valid WSDL documents.
 </part1>
 
 Yves Lafon wrote:
 
 >  The publication of XML 1.1 in February 2004 started a discussion in
 >  the XMLP WG about the meaning of SOAP 1.2 being infoset-based, as
 >  well as compatibility on the wire depending on the level of XML used.
 >
 >  It has been decided that the current SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding will be
 >  restricted to XML 1.0 to ensure maximum compatibility with existing
 >  implementation (ie: the one made prior the introduction of XML 1.1),
 >  while the core of SOAP 1.2 will continue to allow the whole character
 >  range of the Infoset, and let the binding decide what can be
 >  serialized or not.
 >
 >  As this issue might also have an impact on the WSDL drafts, the XMLP
 >  WG decided to notify this group about this issue and the way we
 >  resolved this. The list of changes from XML1.0 to XML1.1 can be found
 >  at [1] The infoset definition of allowable characters can be found at
 >  [2]
 >
 >  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11-20040204/#sec-xml11

  > [2]
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204/#infoitem.character

 >
 >
 >  Regards,
 >

Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 07:37:26 UTC