RE: SOAP Schema

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM 
> [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 19 February 2003 21:02
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Adonis Amore; xml-dist-app@w3.org; xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP Schema
> 
> 
> Don't we need:
> 
> <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
>   <xs:element ref='tns:Fault' />
>   <xs:element ref='tns:Envelope' maxOccurs='unbounded' />
>   <xs:element ref='tns:Header' maxOccurs='unbounded' />
>   <xs:element ref='tns:Body' maxOccurs='unbounded' />
>   <xs:any namespace='##other' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded' />
> </xs:choice>
> 
> In other words, don't we allow more than one child of the body? 

My suggestion allowed more than one child of Body, except in the Fault
case.

> 
> Actually, I have a deeper concern.  While I would generally 
> discourage 
> anyone from misusing our namespace, I'm not convinced this is 
> the place to 
> enforce the restriction.  In other words. I think I should be able to 
> send:
> 
> <soap:Body>
>         <soap:NoahsBogusSoapElement>
>                 ...
>         </soap:NoahsBogusSoapElement>
> </soap:Body>

That seems like something we would want to disallow to me.

> 
> Furthermore, we don't even rule out sending a Fault with 
> other elements, 
> we just indicate that it won't be recognized as a fault.

Agreed.

> No 
> doubt, we 
> could change that, but it's the compromise we adopted and I 
> don't want to 
> go back through CR for something like this.
> 
> All things considered, I think our original schema is the 
> best compromise. 
>  I believe it matches the prose in the case of both Fault and 
> non-Fault 
> boby child elements.

The original schema is essentially what we inherited from SOAP 1.1. I
don't have a burning desire to change it, I was just suggesting some
possible alternatives to those proposed by Adonis.

Gudge

Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 18:07:39 UTC