Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10674Re: [soapbuilders] practical guide for common denominator of schema contstructs?

Expand Messages
  • Paul Downey
    Apr 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 26 Apr 2006, at 00:49, timastaJ wrote:

      > Does anyone have any pointers to documentation/best practices that
      > capture the lowest common denominator of schema construct support in
      > major platforms? i.e., it is colloquially known that xsd:union does
      > not have wide spread support in J2EE app servers, but has this been
      > (in)
      > formally captured anywhere (besides per-platform READMEs). Has anyone
      > taken a stab at producing this laundry list? I'm not looking for a
      > ws-
      > i rant here... ;)

      The W3C XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group is
      currently trying to address this task in its "Basic Patterns"
      document. The result will be a W3C Recommendation and a validation
      tool which will indicate if a given XML Schema or WSDL is likely
      to give "a good user experience with databinding tools".

      We're also working on an "Advanced Patterns" document which
      are a set of XML Schema patterns in common use which should
      be better supported by databinding tools (but typically aren't).

      This work is progressing slowly, thanks in no small part to
      a lack of participation. In particular we've seen very little
      interest from vendors, many of whom still claim to support
      "the whole of schema" when they evidently don't, or
      "the latest version of foobar works with xs:union" when the
      current version of foobar has been in the wild for 3 or so
      years and plainly doesn't.

      The Working Group is conducting technical discussions in public,
      and you are all welcome to contribute patterns and experiences
      with toolkits:


      Identifying the aspects of schema which doesn't work with
      tools hasn't been the approach taken so far, but I continue
      to wonder if "naming and shaming" tools which purport
      to abstract away XML using an XML Schema as an IDL and yet
      fail to map 'xs:choice', etc be a more fruitful activity.

    • Show all 3 messages in this topic