W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2005

RE: Is schemaLocation Required When Importing Inline Schemas?

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:45:06 -0500
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE12A111D.9410A5D9-ON85256FD4.0059FCC8-85256FD4.005C0293@ca.ibm.com>

I think I'd like to rephrase this proposal to remove any reference to a 
processor since we agreed to take processors out ot the spec. We can 
phrase this in terms of document validity as follows:

"All inline schemas that are contained in a WSDL document and any other 
WSDL documents that it directly or indirectly imports or includes MUST be 
used when resolving QName references to elements or types that belong to 
namespaces that  are imported via xs:import elements that have no 
schemaLocation attribute."

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/

Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/30/2005 06:58 AM

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

RE: Is schemaLocation Required When Importing Inline Schemas?

Arthur wrote:

> "If schemaLocation is not present then a WSDL processor 
> MUST attempt to locate the schema among the inline schemas 
> it has encountered while processing the WSDL document." 

i do recall how deep the discussion went regarding the WSDL
WG's ability to define how a schema processor should operate,
even in this high level context, and there were one or two
edge cases. 

However, this is a common sense approach given it matches
how most WSDL 1.1 implementations work, and therefore likely to
simplify the migration of a description from WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0,
so +1.

Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 16:45:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:48 UTC