- From: Octav Chipara <ochipara@cse.unl.edu>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:25:31 -0600
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>, Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > I would agree with Jean, we have to keep everything as simple > > as possible. > > Using schemas, which they do not have currently a lot of support, we > > should make this optional. If you want to develop small > > application you > > should not impose to the application to verify the input against of a > > schema. This would prove very beneficial in a client-server > > model, where > > the client has to have a very small footprint! > > Note here that requirements 400 [1] and 401 [2] currently says that no > one should be forced to use XML Schema in a message (data representation > and envelope are orthogonal) but if a "schema" language is going to be > used it must be XML Schema (data representation must support using XML > Schema simple and complex types). > > This is also the model described by SOAP in section 5 of the SOAP/1.1 spec. > > I don't think the discussion of whether XML schema currently has a lot of > support or not belongs on this list. > Henrik, I know, I just wanted to make sure that nobody will understand that the validation of a message is enforced by the requirements. This is the only point that I wanted to clear up, and probably it should be addressed in the requirements specifically (say it not infer it). That's all ... - Octav
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 17:25:44 UTC