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

Annotations for media-type (opinion poll)

Expand Messages
  • Glen Daniels
    (sorry for the resend - had a bounce problem with soapbuilders...) SOAP builders: The WSDL group has been discussing how to annotate XML Schemas with media
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      (sorry for the resend - had a bounce problem with soapbuilders...)

      SOAP builders:

      The WSDL group has been discussing how to annotate XML Schemas with
      media types for elements which might be candidates for MTOM
      optimization. We have a draft [1] which describes how to do this, which
      uses the following style of annotation:

      <xs:element name="picture" type="myNS:image"> <xs:annotation>
      <xs:appInfo>
      <xmlmime:expectedMediaType>image/*</xmlmime:expectedMediaType>
      </xs:appInfo>
      </xs:annotation>
      </xs:element>

      At a face-to-face in August, we discussed this alternate syntax, which
      was in fact our original syntax before switching to appInfo:

      <xs:element name="picture" type="myNS:image"
      xmlmime:expectedMediaType="image/*"/>

      Clearly the second syntax is shorter/cleaner, and the group expressed a
      preference for this version. However, the question came up as to
      whether commonly available schema toolkits would have more of a problem
      processing the extension attribute on xs:element than they would with
      processing an explicit xs:annotation element with appInfo content. Note
      that the schema spec [2] says that attributes and appInfo are both
      explicit members of the annotations component.

      After taking a quick peek through some common schema APIs (Xerces, and I
      believe something from Microsoft) we came to the conclusion that
      annotation support in general seems to be incomplete in the current
      toolkits, and either version would be hard to deal with. There was a
      theory that if toolkits are going to need to change to better support
      annotations, they shouldn't find it any harder to do attributes than
      appInfo.

      The question is - if/when you implement this, will it be any more
      challenging for you to do either of the options above? Do you have a
      preference?

      Thanks,
      --Glen (on behalf of the WSDL WG)

      [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-media-types/
      [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cAnnotations
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.