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

Re: [soapbuilders] WSDL schemas update

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.