- From: John Kaputin (gmail) <jakaputin@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:38:59 +0000
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4c2ae8f80512051138w2b0b6099m2bc534f5ba0e4c5b@mail.gmail.com>
Arthur/Amelia, I don't have an opinion, but I note Amelia's concerns. I have implemented Woden per Part 1 for now, with extensibility in <import> and <include>, but I can change that to match any final decision. John. On 12/5/05, Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> wrote: > > > I have an opinion. FWIW. :-) > > import and include should *not* permit extensibility elements. It > fuzzes up the component model, and serves no purpose that I can think > of. > > Jonathan, I think this is CR1 (even before CR!). > > Amy! > On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:11:32 -0500 > Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > >John, > > > >You're right. The schema contradicts the spec. I'd don't see a lot of > >use for allowing extensibility elements in the <include> and > ><import>elements since they do not map to WSDL components. However, in > >the spirit of extensibility and consistency, I supposed we should > >allow it, in which case the schema needs to be corrected. Do you have > >an opinion either way? > > > >Arthur Ryman, > >IBM Software Group, Rational Division > > > >blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ > >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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca > > > > > > > >"John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com> > >Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > >12/04/2005 02:40 PM > > > >To > >www-ws-desc@w3.org > >cc > >woden-dev@ws.apache.org, kaputin@uk.ibm.com > >Subject > >Do <import> and <include> support extensibility elements? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I'd like to clarify which WSDL elements support extensibility > >elements. > > > >Part 1, section 6.1 Element based Extensibility states: > >WSDL 2.0 allows namespace-qualified element information items whose > >[namespace name] is NOT "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" to appear > >among the [children] of specific element information items whose > >[namespace name] is "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl". > > > >The word 'specific' suggests some WSDL elements do not support > >extensibility elements. This is backed up by the WSDL 2.0 schema at > >http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/wsdl20.xsd which indicates that all > >WSDL 2.0 elements except <import> and <include> support extensibility > >elements. > > > >However, in Part 1 all of the sections that describe the xml > >representation for each WSDL element state that the [children] of the > >WSDL element may contain: > >Zero or more namespace-qualified element information items whose > >[namespace name] is NOT "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" > > > >i.e. this text applies to <include> and <import> too, in sections 4.1 > >and 4.2, which seems to contradict the schema. > > > >Is this correct? Can <include> and <import> have extensibility > >elements? > > > >Thanks, > >John Kaputin. > > > > > > > > > -- > Amelia A. Lewis > Senior Architect > TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. > alewis@tibco.com > >
Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 19:39:09 UTC