RE: LC124: Ignore Unknowns, some proposed text

Oops, third example was wrong - fixed inline below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:36 AM
> To: paul.downey@bt.com; dorchard@bea.com
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: LC124: Ignore Unknowns, some proposed text
> 
> 
> Isn't one of the advantages of Henry's mechanism is that it the
> results
> are predictable and therefore interoperable?  For instance, given a
> schema for the structure:
> 
>   <name>
>     <first/>
>     <last/>
>   </name>
> 
> And a message instance of:
> 
>   <name>
>     <first/>
>     <last/>
>     <last role="alternate-spelling"/>
>   </name>
> 
> Henry's algorithm should predictably trim one (the last I think)
> <last/>
> element.  I can imagine a reasonable algorithm that trims the first.
> 
> Which actually brings forth another question:  The schema is primarily
> used for code generation, and for mapping the data to that code.
> Given
> the above example, which <last/> will be mapped to code?  Especially
> if the following is also allowed:
> 
>   <name>
>     <first/>
>     <last role="alternate-spelling"/>
>     <last/>
>   </name>
> 
> Do we need Henry's algorithm in play for extracting data from the
> message, as well as for the optional validation step?  That would
> introduce a mandatory validation step in all messages, which could be
> undesirable.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:31 AM
> > To: Jonathan Marsh; dorchard@bea.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: LC124: Ignore Unknowns, some proposed text
> >
> > I think, as well as offering alternative syntax, Dave's proposal [1]
> > is more tightly
> > coupled to Henry's technique than mine [2].  So although Dave may
> have
> > some different text in mind, here's my suggestion for the meaning
> > of 'Ignore Unknowns'
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-
> desc/2005Jun/0016.html
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-
> desc/2005Jun/0012.html
> >
> >
> > The receiver of a message defined by an XML Schema 1.0 element
> marked
> > with an ignoreUnknows property of 'true' must ignore _unexpected
> > items_
> > when processing the message.
> >
> > Such additional, _unexpected items_ may be defined in a different
> > version of the schema which may not be known or available to a
> > sender, receiver or a third-party observing the message exchange,
> > such as an XML Schema 1.0 validator.
> >
> > _Unexpected items_ are attributes and elements not defined by the
> > schema
> > for a particular element. _Unexpected items_ may appear in any
> > namespace
> > including the targetNamespace of a known schema, as well as in
> > a namespace for which no schema is currently known.
> >
> > In the case of an unexpected element, it is the entire element tree,
> > including any child elements, child attributes and content which
> > must be ignored.
> >
> > Beofore checking the validity of a message contents against an XML
> > Schema
> > element marked with an ignoreUnknowns property value of 'true', any
> > _unexpected items_should be first removed from the message.
> > How this removal should be achieved is undefined by this
> > specification.
> >
> > [[
> >     Note: A number of different methods of identifying and removing
> >     _unexpected items_ exist. One such technique is to apply the
> XPath
> >     "*[pe:validity()='notKnown']" on the Post Schema Validation
> > Infoset
> >     (PSVI) produced as a result of XML Schema 1.0 validation.
> >     For more information see [XML Schema: Structures]
> >     and [some Appendix|Primer|Note|Whatever with a write up of
> >     Henry's demo
> > ]]
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 17:55:22 UTC