Re: Issue: SOAP Data Model Schema language may be necessary (related to #231)

Ray, I think I need some clarification. Firstly, you are right about not 
changing the current definition of array to have a specified element 
name. The current definition is fine and alllows you to have any child 
names. I now better understand what I am trying to ask.

What I need clarified is how far the prose of the soap-encoding data 
model goes with regard to derived Array types. If I define an array as a 
restriction of enc:Array (say, ArrayOfstring), then does the prose of 
enc spec still apply? Can the array items still have any name? I think 
this is assumed to be the rule by many toolkits and they accept any name 
for the items (and write any name) and so the schema is not followed. Is 
this the intention or should the soap node use the item name defined in 
the schema?

If any name is still allowed then validation will not work because the 
restriction defines the name that must be used to make the document 
valid. But does the fact that encodingStyle is set to soap-enc override 
the schema in this case? If it does then this is what I would like 
changed. If it doesn't then I'd like that clarified so we know for sure 
we can use a validating parser.

Also, if the restricted array does not include references to 
enc:commonAttributes and enc:arrayAttributes (BTW could 
enc:arrayAttributes not reference enc:commonAttributes instead of 
putting them both on enc:Array so derived arrays only have to reference 
enc:arrayAttributes?) then it will fail validation if arraySize and 
itemType are used. This can be fixed up of course by augmenting the 
schema so is not such a big issue. Is it perhaps something for the WSDL 
spec to spell out when it talks about its wsdl:arrayType (1.1) attribute 
when defining arrays?

Pete

Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 19:56:05 UTC