Re: typeDefinitions property optional?

I agree with Amy. Now that we are building in the simple types from XSD, 
the typeDefinitions property is always present. The spec should be 
corrected to indicate this.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
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



Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
05/03/2006 11:46 AM

To
"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
cc
jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject
Re: typeDefinitions property optional?







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