Re: [ebxml-msg] Questions about the ebXML SOAP Extension Element Schema

[Pete Wenzel <pete.wenzel@sun.com>]

I know in ebMS 1.0-2.0 days, it was helpful to have things appear in
a predictable order, making it easier to eyeball problems.  Not sure
that's still a valid concern, given the much better forensic tools
available today.  I agree the restrictions are unnecessary, but I also
don't think it hurts to leave them as-is.  I'd welcome a compelling
argument either way.

The mis-ordered examples were simply a result of hand-coding them,
during the period that schema development was lagging spec changes.

--Pete

Thus spoke Ric Emery (remery@us.axway.com) on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:58:46PM -0700:
> ...
> I have noticed that the schema uses xsd:sequence in many places where I
> would have expected xsd:all to be used. xsd:seqence forces an ordering of
> elements that I do not think should be required. For example PartyInfo
> requires that the From element precedes the To element.
> ...
> Is there a reason that we have made the schema strict in terms of element
> ordering? While typing this email I went back and looked at the ebMS 2.0
> schema, I notice that schema also enforces specific element ordering. So, I
> suppose it is not a big deal. It just strikes me as unnecessary. Though some
> of the examples in the PR02 draft do not validate because they do not match
> the schema element ordering.

-- 
Pete Wenzel <pete.wenzel@sun.com>
Join the Open ESB Community <http://open-esb.org/>