RE: [wsrf] WSRF WSDL problems with MS tooling (fwd)

["Springer, Ian P." <ian.springer@hp.com>]

| However, as Steve has pointed out, we could avoid using xsd:include by
| putting all the schema material in a single file (per spec).

You wouldn't necessarily have to put all the schema material in the xsd file. The wsdl types/schema could use the wsdl namespace (or any namespace other than the xsd namesapce) as its targetNamespace and then xsd:import the xsd file into the xsd namespace. This would allow you to continue following the current convention of putting all Request/Response/Fault types in the wsdl and all "data" types in the xsd, with the difference being that the Request/Response/Fault types would live in the wsdl namespace.
 
Ian

 
________________________________

From: Peter Niblett [mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Tue 11/2/2004 6:56 AM
To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrf] WSRF WSDL problems with MS tooling (fwd)








Glenn

I've had a quick read of the WS-I basic profile, and I can't see anywhere
where it says you should not use include. It seems to be more concerned
that you should not use wsdl:import to import schema definitions.