|
I'm just saying that putting QNames which are not defined
by schema or WSDL is not a good practice. Do a URI, string or define an XML
element in the schema with the QName you need.
So, you'll get
<muws-xs:OperationalStatus><muws-xs:Available/></muws-xs:OperationalStatus>
instead
of
<muws-xs:OperationalStatus>muws-xs:Available</muws-xs:OperationalStatus>
This
is just proper XML practices. I think this is very simple...
-- Igor
Sedukhin
..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631)
342-4325
..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749
Sedukhin, Igor S wrote:
It should
be
<OperationalStatus>{any}</OperationalStatus>
instead of <OperationalStatus>xs:QName</OperationalStatus>
QNames cannot just hang out there.
They have to be declared in schema, WSDL, policy or some other document.
Declaring them merely in the text is unheard of so far. I suggest we don't do
it.
Therefore there should be XML
element declarations which QNames correspond to the intended status
values. e.g.
element with muws-xs:Available
QName corresponds to available status.
-- Igor
Sedukhin ..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 ..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749
I guess I'm missing something. I
thought the issue was [primarily] that if QNames, properly schema-defined or
not, appear as text, then XML rewriters may muck'em up by changing namespace
prefixes, etc. I don't quite see how their proper schema def'n solves that
particularly, unless we assume that all xml rewriters are schema
savvy.
Since the type is properly defined, it seems legal. It does,
though, for the reasons alluded to above, seem to be a less-than-good way to do
it. A URI would work, as would a new type definition, a restriction on
string, which enumerated the possibilities ("Available", "Partiallyavailable",
"Unavailable" and "Unknown").
Failing that, 'twould seem that making it
an element carrying information content would be the most reasonable way to go
(as we do with categories).
I'm with William in not quite understanding
what "declaring them merely in text is unheard of" means. Surely they need
to be defined if they are QNames. But having QNames in text, albeit now
recognized as less than the best of ideas, does happen. Isn't that used
for the "extends" attribute (list of QNames) in WSDL 2 (or did it
change)?
|