W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Array Confusion

From: Xan Gregg <xan@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:40:09 -0400
Message-ID: <339902DC0E58D411986A00B0D03D84320186A36A@extmail.extensibility.com>
To: "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@microsoft.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, Brenda Bell <bbell@juicesoftware.com>

And to make matters worse, the soapbuilders group intentionally decided to
use the flawed WSDL example as a model for array definitions in their
interoperability suite.  Their argument is that compatibility is more
important than correctness.

And it looks like the recent WSDL 1.2 : Bindings WD [1] propagates the


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsdl12-bindings-20020709/

-----Original Message-----
From: Dare Obasanjo 
Subject: RE: Array Confusion

You are not the first to note a certain lack of understanding of W3C XML
Schema on the parts of the WSDL/SOAP editors. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeni Tennison
> Subject: Re: Array Confusion
> Briefly glancing through the WSDL/SOAP encoding specs, I 
> think that the authors of those specs might be missing the 
> fact that when you derive a type by restriction you must 
> specify a content model for the type, or specify that it's 
> mixed, otherwise elements of that type can't legally contain anything.
> But *you* don't seem to be missing anything -- your 
> description of what the DoubleArray type definition is doing 
> is absolutely correct.
> Cheers,
> Jeni
> ---
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 18:45:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:04 UTC