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

practical guide for common denominator of schema contstructs?

Expand Messages
  • timastaJ
    All, Does anyone have any pointers to documentation/best practices that capture the lowest common denominator of schema construct support in major platforms?
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 25, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      All,

      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... ;)

      Tim Julien
    • Paul Downey
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 3 , 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:

        http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/

        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.

        Paul
        --
        http://blog.whatfettle.com
      • Steve Loughran
        ... go for it :)
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On 4/26/06, Paul Downey <paul.downey@...> wrote:

          > 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.
          >

          go for it :)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.