- From: Tim Ewald <tjewald@develop.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:00:58 -0500
- To: "'XMLDISTAPP'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> One issue with the current definitions of enc:integer is that > they don't allow for anything other than id/href from the > encoding namespace, so you can run into issues with root & > arrayType etc. There is also likely to be a problem with more derived types. For instance, if I want to define an integer restricted to the range 0 to 100, should I derive it from xsd:integer or the SOAP encoding array version, e.g., enc:integer? Or am I not supposed to do that if I'm using the SOAP data model? If I do have a simple type derived from xsd:integer, am I responsible for making an equivalent complexType with an id and href attribute? If I do, and a SOAP processor checks explicitly for types defined in the SOAP encoding namespace (which my type would not be), how will it know what I'm doing? I see a strong argument for Noah's wrapper style simply to avoid these problems. > I really wish that soapencoding would either fully adopt XSD, > or completely drop it, and not continue its current parts of > XSD approach, and the resulting confusion it brings. Amen, brother. Tim-
Received on Sunday, 3 March 2002 13:02:09 UTC