Re: Suggestion to improve an XML syntax tree

John,

Technically, Part 1 correct since even XSD is an extension, however it is 
certainly a favoured extension.

We recently decided to allow multliple <description> elements (to simplify 
NL support).

The Primer is wrong in my opinion since there is no requirement to have 
the xs: elements come first. A more accurate tree would be:

<description>
        <types>
                <documentation />*
                (<xs:import namespace="xs:anyURI" schemaLocation= 
"xs:anyURI"?/> |
                <xs:schema targetNamespace="xs:anyURI" /> |
                [other extension elements])*
        </types>
</description>

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/



John Kaputin <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
07/07/2005 06:57 AM

To
www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
Suggestion to improve an XML syntax tree










At the start of Part 1: Section 3 'Types' is the following XML syntax 
tree:

<description>
  <types>
    <documentation />*
    [extension elements]*
  </types>
</description>

In the WSDL 2.0 Primer, Section 2.3 'More on Message Types', the following
more descriptive XML syntax tree is used:

<description>
<types>
<documentation />?
<xs:import namespace="xs:anyURI" schemaLocation= "xs:anyURI"?/>*
<xs:schema targetNamespace="xs:anyURI" />*

[extension elements]*
</types>
</description>

Perhaps Part 1: Section 3 'Types' should use the same XML syntax tree
that's used in the Primer, especially as it goes on to discuss <xs:import>
and <xs:schema>.

regards,
John Kaputin