W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Basic Profile

From: Joshua Boverhof <JRBoverhof@lbl.gov>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:50:40 -0800
Message-ID: <40269310.7030605@lbl.gov>
To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Cc: www-ws@w3.org

Anne Thomas Manes wrote:

> Josh,
> The WS-I Basic Profile defines a set of constraints to SOAP 1.1, WSDL 
> 1.1, and UDDI 2.0 that clarifies a number of ambiguities and fixes a 
> number of errors and contradictions in the original specifications. 
> These constraints also limit the number of options supplied in the 
> specifications that make interoperability more challenging.
> These constraints conform with WSDL 1.1.
> When using RPC style messages, you don't explicitly define the 
> parameter elements -- you only define the types. The SOAP runtime 
> system dynamically generates the element definitions. The SOAP 1.1 and 
> WSDL 1.1 specifications do not specify what namespace these *elements* 
> should belong to. Hence the WS-I BP clarifies this point. (no namespace)
> Any child elements of these parameter elements are explicitly defined 
> within a namespace, thus R2737 stipulates that these elements must be 
> properly namespace qualified per the schema definition.
> Anne 

This doesn't sound like a good solution to me, I think there are at 
least four better
ways of addresing this issue:
1. make it illegal
2. use the binding to define the namespace
3. Use the WSDL targetNamespace
4. Use the type namespace

Would it be legal to use 'encoded' to specify no namespace for an xml 
instance, and
essentially define all of the elements in an instance w/o namespace?

Can I use an XML Schema w/o a targetNamespace in a WSDL document?

The question I'm driving at: Are rpc/literal wrappers the only exception 
to a general
rule that all elements in an instance are namespaced?

Received on Sunday, 8 February 2004 14:50:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:14 UTC