Re: [wsbpel] Comment on Section 9.2 Variables

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

There are numerous well known problems with our use of XML Schema. Most 
of these problems are a consequence of XML Schema's design. XML Schema 
is incapable of describing BPEL's syntax. In fact, XML Schema is 
incapable of describing any extensible system's syntax. [1]

When faced with conflicts between BPEL's desired syntax and XML Schema's 
numerous limitations we have consistently chosen to stick with BPEL's 
syntax and make a note in the spec that a particular restriction is not 
enforced by XML Schema. That is why the language you quoted is in the spec.

	Thanks,

		Yaron

[1] <http://www.goland.org/Tech/xmlschemabackwardscompat.htm>

andrew.francis@mail.mcgill.ca wrote:

> 
> 
> Hello Colleagues:
> 
> I am not sure if this (minor) issue has been previously
> raised....
> 
> I was reading section 9.2 of the July 30th, 2004
> specification and the accompanying schema:
> 
> <variables>
>         <variable name="ncname" messageType="qname"?
>                type=”qname”? element=”qname”?/>+
> </variables>
> 
> The specification states:
> 
> "The messageType, type or element attributes are used to
> specify the type of a variable. Exactly one of these
> attributes must be used."
> 
> I think it would be more appropriate for the schema to
> use an xsd enumeration. "MessageType", "type" and "element"
> aren't different attributes but rather different values
> that describe a variable's type. Also the current schema
> won't prevent one from defining two or more of the
> attributes exactly once.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
> the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
> 
>