- From: Xan Gregg <xan@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:58:43 -0500
- To: "'Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI'" <kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
I believe you are right; it does violate the constraint. xan -----Original Message----- From: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI [mailto:kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:39 PM To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: WSDL and possible UPA violation I found the following part in the WSDL schema, a normative part of W3C Note (http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl) --------------------------- <complexType name="operationType"> <complexContent> <extension base="wsdl:documented"> <choice> <group ref="wsdl:one-way-operation"/> <group ref="wsdl:request-response-operation"/> .... </choice> .... </extension> </complexContent> </complexType> <group name="one-way-operation"> <sequence> <element ref="wsdl:input"/> </sequence> </group> <group name="request-response-operation"> <sequence> <element ref="wsdl:input"/> <element ref="wsdl:output"/> <element ref="wsdl:fault" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </sequence> </group> --------------------------- I believe this is a violation of UPA, just like the following schema is a violation of UPA: <choice> <element ref="foo"/> <sequence> <element ref="foo"/> <element ref="bar"/> </sequence> </choice> Am I right? Or am I wrong? regards, -- Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI +1 607 257 0037 Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi@sun.com
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 14:59:23 UTC