- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:16:56 -0800
- To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com] > Sent: 01 February 2003 01:11 > To: Martin Gudgin > Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; jones@research.att.com; Martin > Gudgin; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon > > > > DRXX - A message with all its parts, however separated physically, > > must be representable as a single infoset and describable > as a single > > XML element in an XML schema. > > What's the Infoset description of an external XML message > with its own DTD? > > What's the rationale for wanting to impose the Infoset model > on anything someone might want to reference from a SOAP > message? What kinds of things do you think would be gained > and lost from this approach? I think that given we have spent the last 2+ years defining envelope as infoset and a processing model for that infoset it would behoove us to make sure that we can at least map whatever we come up with into that infoset. FWIW - I think a reasonable schema type for an element whose content was an XML message with it's own DTD would be <xs:complexType name='XMLDoc" > <xs:simpleContent> <xs:extension base='xs:base64Binary" > <xs:attribute name='href' type='xs:anyURI' /> <xs:attribute name='type' type='xxx:MimeType' fixed='text/xml' /> </xs:extension> </xs:simpleContent> </xs:complexType> where xxx:MimeType is some simple type that allows all the registered MIME types. Gudge
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 12:35:19 UTC