Re: Is schemaLocation Required When Importing Inline Schemas?

I wasn't in the WG when the original discussion occurred, but I had a 
concern wrt the MUST in the statement (perhaps an edge case, 
nevertheless something that the WG should consider):
What happens if there is an inline definition/decl of a particular 
well-known QName reference to element/type in a WSDL that is 
imported/included and the definition/decl does not match the well-known one?

For example, wsdl1 imports wsdl2 and wsdl2 contains a definition of a 
complexType {http://example.com/type}bar that is well know and cached by 
the processor processing wsdl1. wsdl1 does not use/reference any 
constructs defined in wsdl2 that use {http://example.com/type}bar, but 
wsdl1 does directly reference {http://example.com/type}bar complexType 
(and does the relevant import of the namespace).
In the above case, the processor processing wsdl1 should be allowed to 
ignore the inline definition of the complexType 
{http://example.com/type}bar in wsdl2.

A minor amendment to the proposal that I would like to suggest is that 
the MUST be converted to a SHOULD with appropriate explanation OR keep 
the MUST and modify the wordings so that cases such as the one above are 
excluded.

-Anish
--

Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> *<paul.downey@bt.com>*
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> 
> 03/30/2005 06:58 AM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	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.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 19:37:06 UTC