- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:46:18 -0400
- To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
- Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Wed, 3 May 2006 17:13:46 +1000 "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote: >I thought the schema built-in types were included implicitly rather >than explicitly? True, but that means that the types EII is optional, not the typeDefinitions property. > >Tony Rogers >CA, Inc > >________________________________ > >From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonathan Marsh >Sent: Tue 02-May-06 23:01 >To: www-ws-desc@w3.org >Subject: typeDefinitions property optional? > > > >Section 2.1.2 defines the typeDefinitions property as optional, but >then states that it contains the build-in simple types from Schema. I >think the result is that it's really not optional at all. Should we >change it to REQUIRED? > > > >Also, we might also mention in the mapping that this is the minimum, >contrary to the minimum suggested there. > > > > [ Jonathan Marsh ][ jmarsh@microsoft.com > <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com> ] > [ http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes > <http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes> ] > > > > -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:54:58 UTC