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

RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update

Expand Messages
  • James Pasley
    The use attribute on the soap body is described in the spec as The required use attribute indicates whether.... However, in the schema it is still marked as
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      The use attribute on the soap body is described in the spec as
      "The required use attribute indicates whether...."
      However, in the schema it is still marked as optional.

      If it is intended to be optional, what is it's default value?
      As the default for style is "document", as sensible default for use might be
      "literal".

      While on the subject of default values - would it be a good idea to
      include the default values for such attributes in the schema?

      James.

      Cape Clear Software Limited.
      61 Fitzwilliam Lane
      Dublin 2
      Ireland.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Kirill Gavrylyuk [mailto:kirillg@...]
      Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:20 AM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update



      Hi, all!
      Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to Recommendation
      version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following locations:

      Wsdl.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/>
      http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
      Wsdl-mime.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/>
      http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
      Wsdl-http.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/>
      http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
      Wsdl-soap.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/>
      http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/

      Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage of the WSDL spec.
      They were reviewed and approved by spec authors.

      Please take a look and tell us if there are any problems.

      Thank you.


      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
      implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
    • Matt Long
      All, It looks like wsdl:required is back on the table. With regard for soap binding schema, 1) soap:body, where wsdl:required= 1 or omitted is valid;
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        All,

        It looks like wsdl:required is back on the table.

        With regard for soap binding schema,

        1) soap:body, where wsdl:required="1" or omitted is valid;
        wsdl:required="0" invalid
        2) soap:operation, (same as (1))
        3) soap:fault, optional where wsdl:required="1" is explicitly defined fault;
        wsdl:required="0" is optional explicit usage.
        4) soap:header
        a) input header, where wsdl:required="1" is required input header;
        wsdl:required="0" or omitted optional header
        b) output header, where wsdl:required="1" header is always transmitted;
        wsdl:required="0" or omittted optional transmitted header

        Is this consistent with current thoughts on usage of wsdl:required?

        Thx,

        -Matt Long
        Phalanx Systems, LLC






        -----Original Message-----
        From: Kirill Gavrylyuk [mailto:kirillg@...]
        Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:20 AM
        To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update



        Hi, all!
        Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to Recommendation
        version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following locations:

        Wsdl.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/>
        http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
        Wsdl-mime.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/>
        http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
        Wsdl-http.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/>
        http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
        Wsdl-soap.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/>
        http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/

        Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage of the WSDL spec.
        They were reviewed and approved by spec authors.

        Please take a look and tell us if there are any problems.

        Thank you.


        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
        implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
        <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
      • Mike Deem
        Adding soapbuilders. == Mike == ... From: Mike Deem Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:01 PM To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders]
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Adding soapbuilders.

          == Mike ==


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mike Deem
          Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 3:01 PM
          To: 'wsdl@yahoogroups.com'
          Subject: RE: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update

          I don't think that interpreting the meaning of wsdl:required based on
          context is possible. The specification certainly doesn't spell out how
          such interpretation should be done on an element by element basis and
          such details are necessary to resolve ambiguity. While it seems
          intuitive to say that wsdl:required="false" means a header is optional
          what does it mean for soap:body? How about soap:operation?

          If it is truly desirable for there to be a way to specify that a given
          header is optional (something that I doubt), you could do it using a new
          extension element and wsdl:required in the way it is intended to be
          used:

          <wsdl:input>
          <myext:optionalHeaders wsdl:required="true">
          <soap:header .../>
          <soap:header .../>
          </myext:optionalHeaders>
          ...
          </wsdl:input>

          A processor that doesn't recognize the extension should ignore the
          nested soap:header elements. One that does recognize the extension would
          be implemented to process them in a way that they are optional.

          == Mike ==


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@...]
          Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:06 PM
          To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update

          Hi Mike,

          I see a potential issue as one of context. It seems that wsdl:required
          in some cases is being used to communicate the context of message, i.e.,
          wsdl:required="1" encoded on soap:header indicates the soap:header is
          required for successful messaging processing. I can vision advantages
          on both sides of the wire doing this.

          Do you think usage as such is in-scope or out-of-scope?


          Thx,

          -Matt Long
          Phalanx Systems,LLC

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mike Deem [mailto:mikedeem@...]
          > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 2:23 PM
          > To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
          >
          >
          > I think it is as simple as this: if a WSDL processor sees a
          > wsdl:required="1" attribute on an extension element it doesn't
          > recognize, it should fail (otherwise, it could produce incorrect
          > results). Other unrecognized extension elements can safely be ignored.
          > This attribute has no more or less meaning then that.
          >
          > Since a WSDL processor that supports SOAP is expected to recognize all
          > the soap related extension elements, it seems valid to put a
          > wsdl:required="1" attribute on any of them. The absence of this
          > attribute in most WSDL documents means only that most authors are
          > expecting that every WSDL implementation understands the SOAP
          > extension
          > even though that requirement is not explicitly stated.
          >
          > == Mike ==
          >
          > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
          > rights.
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@...]
          > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:11 AM
          > To: wsdl@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [wsdl] FW: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
          >
          >
          > All,
          >
          > It looks like wsdl:required is back on the table.
          >
          > With regard for soap binding schema,
          >
          > 1) soap:body, where wsdl:required="1" or omitted is valid;
          > wsdl:required="0" invalid
          > 2) soap:operation, (same as (1))
          > 3) soap:fault, optional where wsdl:required="1" is explicitly defined
          > fault; wsdl:required="0" is optional explicit usage.
          > 4) soap:header
          > a) input header, where wsdl:required="1" is required input header;
          > wsdl:required="0" or omitted optional header
          > b) output header, where wsdl:required="1" header is always
          > transmitted; wsdl:required="0" or omittted optional
          > transmitted header
          >
          > Is this consistent with current thoughts on usage of wsdl:required?
          >
          > Thx,
          >
          > -Matt Long
          > Phalanx Systems, LLC
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Kirill Gavrylyuk [mailto:kirillg@...]
          > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:20 AM
          > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
          >
          >
          >
          > Hi, all!
          > Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to Recommendation
          > version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following
          > locations:
          >
          > Wsdl.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/>
          > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
          > Wsdl-mime.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/>
          > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
          > Wsdl-http.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/>
          > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
          > Wsdl-soap.xsd - <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/>
          > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/
          >
          > Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage of the WSDL
          > spec. They were reviewed and approved by spec authors.
          >
          > Please take a look and tell us if there are any problems.
          >
          > Thank you.
          >
          >
          > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
          > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
          >
          >
          >
          > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
          > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          > This group is a forum for the discussion of the WSDL specification and
          > its implementation. Please stay on-topic.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > wsdl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ---------------------~-->
          > Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
          > Pinpoint the right security solution for your company - FREE
          > Guide from industry leader VeriSign gives you all the facts.
          > http://us.click.yahoo.com/lWSNbC/WdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
          > --------------------------------------------------------------
          > -------~->
          >
          > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          > This group is a forum for the discussion of the WSDL
          > specification and its implementation. Please stay on-topic.
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > wsdl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Kirill Gavrylyuk
          Thanks, James, ... this seem to be a bug in the schema, need to fix this. Any objections? ... include the default values for such attributes in the schema
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Message
            Thanks, James,
            >However, in the schema it is still marked as optional.
            this seem to be a bug in the schema, need to fix this. Any objections?
            >While on the subject of default values - would it be a good idea to include the default values for such attributes in the schema
            would be good, where possible.
            Thanks.
            -----Original Message-----
            From: James Pasley [mailto:james.pasley@...]
            Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:03 AM
            To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update

             
            The use attribute on the soap body is described in the spec as
                "The required use attribute indicates whether...."
            However, in the schema it is still marked as optional.
             
            If it is intended to be optional, what is it's default value?
            As the default for style is "document", as sensible default for use might be "literal".
             
            While on the subject of default values - would it be a good idea to
            include the default values for such attributes in the schema?
             
            James.
             
            Cape Clear Software Limited.
            61 Fitzwilliam Lane
            Dublin 2
            Ireland.
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Kirill Gavrylyuk [mailto:kirillg@...]
            Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:20 AM
            To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update

            Hi, all!
            Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to Recommendation version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following locations:

            Wsdl.xsd                -       http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
            Wsdl-mime.xsd   -       http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
            Wsdl-http.xsd   -       http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
            Wsdl-soap.xsd   -       http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/

            Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage of the WSDL spec. They were reviewed and approved by spec authors.

            Please take a look and tell us if there are any problems.

            Thank you.


            -----------------------------------------------------------------
            This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • Simon Fell
            ... Earlier versions of the schema used a sequence for the definitions element, now its a repeating choice, was there a specific reason to go away from
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:19:32 -0800, in soap you wrote:

              >Hi, all!
              >Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to Recommendation
              >version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following locations:
              >
              >Wsdl.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
              >Wsdl-mime.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
              >Wsdl-http.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
              >Wsdl-soap.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/
              >
              >Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage of the WSDL
              >spec. They were reviewed and approved by spec authors.
              >Please take a look and tell us if there are any problems.
              >
              >Thank you.

              Earlier versions of the schema used a sequence for the definitions
              element, now its a repeating choice, was there a specific reason to go
              away from requiring the elements in definitions to be in a specific
              order ?

              Tx
              Simon
              www.pocketsoap.com
            • Kirill Gavrylyuk
              Hi, Simon! We felt that spec wording does not limit the order of definitions children. So we put a sequence of choice elements to allow any order. What do
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi, Simon!
                We felt that spec wording does not limit the order of definitions
                children. So we put a sequence of choice elements to allow any order.
                What do people think about it?

                Thanks.

                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Simon Fell [mailto:soap@...]
                > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:08 PM
                > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
                >
                >
                > On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:19:32 -0800, in soap you wrote:
                >
                > >Hi, all!
                > >Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to
                > Recommendation
                > >version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following
                > locations:
                > >
                > >Wsdl.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
                > >Wsdl-mime.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
                > >Wsdl-http.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
                > >Wsdl-soap.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/
                > >
                > >Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage
                > of the WSDL
                > >spec. They were reviewed and approved by spec authors. Please take a
                > >look and tell us if there are any problems.
                > >
                > >Thank you.
                >
                > Earlier versions of the schema used a sequence for the
                > definitions element, now its a repeating choice, was there a
                > specific reason to go away from requiring the elements in
                > definitions to be in a specific order ?
                >
                > Tx
                > Simon
                > www.pocketsoap.com
                >
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > ---------------------~--> Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value
                > of Trust Secure all your Web servers now - with a proven
                > 5-part strategy. The FREE Server Security Guide shows you
                > how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iWSNbC/VdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
                > --------------------------------------------------------------
                > -------~->
                >
                > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please
                > stay on-topic.
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
              • Simon Fell
                I d prefer for as few as possible semantic changes to be made. The fixed order is useful if you have a sax based processor for WSDL. Cheers Simon
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'd prefer for as few as possible semantic changes to be made. The
                  fixed order is useful if you have a sax based processor for WSDL.

                  Cheers
                  Simon
                  www.pocketsoap.com

                  On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:21:44 -0800, in soap you wrote:

                  >Hi, Simon!
                  >We felt that spec wording does not limit the order of definitions
                  >children. So we put a sequence of choice elements to allow any order.
                  >What do people think about it?
                  >
                  >Thanks.
                  >
                  >> -----Original Message-----
                  >> From: Simon Fell [mailto:soap@...]
                  >> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:08 PM
                  >> To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                  >> Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:19:32 -0800, in soap you wrote:
                  >>
                  >> >Hi, all!
                  >> >Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to
                  >> Recommendation
                  >> >version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following
                  >> locations:
                  >> >
                  >> >Wsdl.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
                  >> >Wsdl-mime.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
                  >> >Wsdl-http.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
                  >> >Wsdl-soap.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/
                  >> >
                  >> >Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage
                  >> of the WSDL
                  >> >spec. They were reviewed and approved by spec authors. Please take a
                  >> >look and tell us if there are any problems.
                  >> >
                  >> >Thank you.
                  >>
                  >> Earlier versions of the schema used a sequence for the
                  >> definitions element, now its a repeating choice, was there a
                  >> specific reason to go away from requiring the elements in
                  >> definitions to be in a specific order ?
                  >>
                  >> Tx
                  >> Simon
                  >> www.pocketsoap.com
                  >>
                  >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >> ---------------------~--> Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value
                  >> of Trust Secure all your Web servers now - with a proven
                  >> 5-part strategy. The FREE Server Security Guide shows you
                  >> how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iWSNbC/VdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
                  >> --------------------------------------------------------------
                  >> -------~->
                  >>
                  >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
                  >> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                  >> discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please
                  >> stay on-topic.
                  >>
                  >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  >> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >-----------------------------------------------------------------
                  >This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                  >
                  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                • Matt Long
                  Kirill, That s going to break some ppl who developed on the literal definition of sequence (children of definitions) in the previous schema. Thx, -Matt Long
                  Message 8 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Kirill,

                    That's going to break some ppl who developed on the literal definition of
                    sequence (children of definitions) in the previous schema.

                    Thx,

                    -Matt Long
                    Phalanx Systems, LLC

                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Kirill Gavrylyuk [mailto:kirillg@...]
                    > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:22 PM
                    > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi, Simon!
                    > We felt that spec wording does not limit the order of definitions
                    > children. So we put a sequence of choice elements to allow any order.
                    > What do people think about it?
                    >
                    > Thanks.
                    >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: Simon Fell [mailto:soap@...]
                    > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:08 PM
                    > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:19:32 -0800, in soap you wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >Hi, all!
                    > > >Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to
                    > > Recommendation
                    > > >version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following
                    > > locations:
                    > > >
                    > > >Wsdl.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
                    > > >Wsdl-mime.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
                    > > >Wsdl-http.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
                    > > >Wsdl-soap.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/
                    > > >
                    > > >Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage
                    > > of the WSDL
                    > > >spec. They were reviewed and approved by spec authors.
                    > Please take a
                    > > >look and tell us if there are any problems.
                    > > >
                    > > >Thank you.
                    > >
                    > > Earlier versions of the schema used a sequence for the
                    > > definitions element, now its a repeating choice, was there a
                    > > specific reason to go away from requiring the elements in
                    > > definitions to be in a specific order ?
                    > >
                    > > Tx
                    > > Simon
                    > > www.pocketsoap.com
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > > ---------------------~--> Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value
                    > > of Trust Secure all your Web servers now - with a proven
                    > > 5-part strategy. The FREE Server Security Guide shows you
                    > > how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iWSNbC/VdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
                    > > --------------------------------------------------------------
                    > > -------~->
                    > >
                    > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    > > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                    > > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please
                    > > stay on-topic.
                    > >
                    > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > ---------------------~-->
                    > Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
                    > Do you need to encrypt all your online transactions? Find
                    > the perfect solution in this FREE Guide from VeriSign.
                    > http://us.click.yahoo.com/jWSNbC/UdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
                    > --------------------------------------------------------------
                    > -------~->
                    >
                    > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                    > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please
                    > stay on-topic.
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Kirill Gavrylyuk
                    I see - sure, I don t think there is any problem with reverting it back. Does everybody concur that schema for definitions element should be reverted back to
                    Message 9 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I see - sure, I don't think there is any problem with reverting it back.
                      Does everybody concur that schema for definitions element should be
                      reverted back to <sequence>?
                      Thanks


                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Matt Long [mailto:mlong@...]
                      > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:16 PM
                      > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
                      >
                      >
                      > Kirill,
                      >
                      > That's going to break some ppl who developed on the literal
                      > definition of sequence (children of definitions) in the
                      > previous schema.
                      >
                      > Thx,
                      >
                      > -Matt Long
                      > Phalanx Systems, LLC
                      >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: Kirill Gavrylyuk [mailto:kirillg@...]
                      > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:22 PM
                      > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Hi, Simon!
                      > > We felt that spec wording does not limit the order of definitions
                      > > children. So we put a sequence of choice elements to allow
                      > any order.
                      > > What do people think about it?
                      > >
                      > > Thanks.
                      > >
                      > > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > > From: Simon Fell [mailto:soap@...]
                      > > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:08 PM
                      > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:19:32 -0800, in soap you wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > >Hi, all!
                      > > > >Following community demand for updating WSDL schemas to
                      > > > Recommendation
                      > > > >version of XML Schema, schemas were updated at the following
                      > > > locations:
                      > > > >
                      > > > >Wsdl.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/
                      > > > >Wsdl-mime.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/mime/
                      > > > >Wsdl-http.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/http/
                      > > > >Wsdl-soap.xsd - http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/
                      > > > >
                      > > > >Schemas were also fixed in couple places to match verbiage
                      > > > of the WSDL
                      > > > >spec. They were reviewed and approved by spec authors.
                      > > Please take a
                      > > > >look and tell us if there are any problems.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >Thank you.
                      > > >
                      > > > Earlier versions of the schema used a sequence for the
                      > > > definitions element, now its a repeating choice, was there a
                      > > > specific reason to go away from requiring the elements in
                      > > > definitions to be in a specific order ?
                      > > >
                      > > > Tx
                      > > > Simon
                      > > > www.pocketsoap.com
                      > > >
                      > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > > > ---------------------~--> Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value
                      > > > of Trust Secure all your Web servers now - with a proven
                      > > > 5-part strategy. The FREE Server Security Guide shows you
                      > > > how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iWSNbC/VdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
                      > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
                      > > > -------~->
                      > > >
                      > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                      > > > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                      > > > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please
                      > > > stay on-topic.
                      > > >
                      > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > > ---------------------~-->
                      > > Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
                      > > Do you need to encrypt all your online transactions? Find
                      > > the perfect solution in this FREE Guide from VeriSign.
                      > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/jWSNbC/UdiDAA/yigFAA/W6uqlB/TM
                      > > --------------------------------------------------------------
                      > > -------~->
                      > >
                      > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                      > > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
                      > > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please
                      > > stay on-topic.
                      > >
                      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.