- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@opensource.lk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:07:07 +0600
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Lawrence Mandel <lmandel@ca.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Lawrence, did you not find those extra constraints written in prose in the spec? If not we have a problem to be fixed. Sanjiva. On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:50 -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote: > > Lawrence/Jonathan, > > The technical problem is that extension elements are allowed anywhere > and if you describe that using choice then the resulting schema is > non-deterministic, which is apparently a very bad thing. > > The resolution of this issue was to leave the schema as it is and add > rules to the validator. (more coding for Woden) > > 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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca > intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ > > > "Jonathan Marsh" > <jmarsh@microsoft.com> > Sent by: > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > > 07/05/2005 03:20 PM > > > To > Lawrence > Mandel/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org> > cc > > Subject > RE: WSDL 2.0 > element order > enforcement in > schema > > > > > > > > > Your schema appears to limit extension elements to > post-import/include/types, right? We looked at that before and found > it unacceptable. We have looked at several different ways to describe > the order of top-level elements in Schema several times, including > using substitution groups, but we’ve never found a solution that > didn’t impose other restrictions. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Lawrence Mandel > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:10 AM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: WSDL 2.0 element order enforcement in schema > > > While looking at the WSDL 2.0 schema today I came across a question > about the ordering of elements in a WSDL 2.0 document. > > Section 2.1.2 of the WSDL 2.0 spec defines the following XML > representation of WSDL 2.0, > > <description > targetNamespace="xs:anyURI" > > <documentation />* > [ <import /> | <include /> ]* > <types />? > [ <interface /> | <binding /> | <service /> ]* > </description> > > This definition imposes ordering constraints on the elements in the > WSDL 2.0 document. The WSDL 2.0 schema does not currently enforce this > ordering. The description type is defined as follows, > > <xs:complexType name='DescriptionType' > > <xs:annotation> > <xs:documentation> > > Please refer to the WSDL 2.0 specification for > additional constraints on the contents of this type. > </xs:documentation> > </xs:annotation> > <xs:complexContent> > <xs:extension base='wsdl:ExtensibleDocumentedType' > > <xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded' > > <xs:element ref='wsdl:import' /> > <xs:element ref='wsdl:include' /> > <xs:element ref='wsdl:types'/> > > <xs:element ref='wsdl:interface' /> > <xs:element ref='wsdl:binding' /> > <xs:element ref='wsdl:service' /> > <xs:any namespace='##other' processContents='lax' /> > </xs:choice> > <xs:attribute name='targetNamespace' type='xs:anyURI' > use='required' /> > </xs:extension> > </xs:complexContent> > </xs:complexType> > > The schema can be updated as follows to enforce the ordering outlined > in the spec. > > <xs:complexType name='DescriptionType' > > <xs:annotation> > <xs:documentation> > Please refer to the WSDL 2.0 specification for > additional constraints on the contents of this type. > </xs:documentation> > </xs:annotation> > <xs:complexContent> > <xs:extension base='wsdl:ExtensibleDocumentedType' > > <xs:sequence> > <xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded' > > <xs:element ref='wsdl:import' /> > <xs:element ref='wsdl:include' /> > </xs:choice> > <xs:element ref='wsdl:types' minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> > <xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded' > > <xs:element ref='wsdl:interface' /> > <xs:element ref='wsdl:binding' /> > <xs:element ref='wsdl:service' /> > <xs:any namespace='##other' processContents='lax' /> > </xs:choice> > </xs:sequence> > <xs:attribute name='targetNamespace' type='xs:anyURI' > use='required' /> > </xs:extension> > </xs:complexContent> > </xs:complexType> > > Is the omission of ordering constraints from the schema intentional? > Can someone update the schema to enforce section 2.1.2 of the spec? > > > Thanks, > > Lawrence Mandel > > Software Developer > IBM Rational Software > Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814 Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920 > lmandel@ca.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 03:08:20 UTC