[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg]Issue73:http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelopenamespace
There have been SOAP1.1 schema[1] updated so as to a) fix errata and b) use XML Schema REC. I might suggest that we adopt these instead of the one I hacked together to get a parser to accept our schema. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jul/0074.html Cheers, Chris Arvola Chan wrote: > Doug: > > > > I tried removing the ds, xlink, and soap namespace declarations. XML > Authority reports lots of errors on the resulting schema, one of which is: > > > > Imported schema must have a target namespace in order to 'import'. > Namespace information will be lost. > > > > Therefore, I don't think it is OK to remove these namespace declarations. > > > > I didn't realize that the schema in > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope namespace is for SOAP 1.2. In > that case, it would be inappropriate for us to use the schema directly > available from that location. Still, I think section 2.3.2 is > technically incorrect, because it currently states: > > > > " > > The SOAP namespace: > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/ > > resolves to a schema conforming to an early Working Draft version of the > W3C XML Schema specification, specifically identified by the following URI: > > http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema > > " > > > > Thanks, > > -Arvola > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com <mailto:dougb62@yahoo.com>> > To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org > <mailto:ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> > <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>> > Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] > Issue73:http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelopenamespace > > Arvola, > > I agree we need all of the current import statements and namespace > declarations. Namespaces must be declared where they are used (in > both instance and schema documents). Schema documents need the > import as well for reasons documented in the excerpt below. > > About the only thing that might be removable is the ds, xlink and > soap namespace declarations in our schema document. (I haven't > tried this removal with existing XML parsers but it might work since > those namespaces are referenced only within attribute content.) It > wouldn't be a worthwhile change at this stage because the > declarations in question certainly do no harm and have no effect on > users of the schema. > > On your original question: The new schema you mention is for SOAP > 1.2 which remains under development. While SOAP 1.1 is only a Note, > it is at least more stable than a draft Recommendation. Further, > switching from SOAP 1.1 to 1.2 would be a rather large change to our > document. > > thanx, > doug > > Arvola Chan wrote: > > David: I don't think the import constructs in msg-header-2_0 > are redundant. Here is an excerpt > from http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#import:The report schema, > report.xsd <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#report.xsd>, makes > use of the simple type xipo:SKU that is defined in another > schema, and in another target namespace. Recall that we used > include <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#element-include> so > that the schema in ipo.xsd > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#ipo.xsd> could make use of > definitions and declarations from address.xsd > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#address.xsd>. We cannot use > include <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#element-include> here > because it can only pull in definitions and declarations from a > schema whose target namespace is the same as the including > schema's target namespace. Hence, the include > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#element-include> element does > not identify a namespace (although it does require a > schemaLocation > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#attribute-schemaLocation>). > The import mechanism that we describe in this section is an > important mechanism that enables schema components from > different target namespaces to be used together, and hence > enables the schema validation of instance content defined across > multiple namespaces. > > To import the type SKU and use it in the report schema, we > identify the namespace in which SKU is defined, and associate > that namespace with a prefix for use in the report schema. > Concretely, we use the import > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#element-import> element to > identify SKU's target namespace, http://www.example.com/IPO, and > we associate the namespace with the prefix xipo using a standard > namespace declaration. The simple type SKU, defined in the > namespace http://www.example.com/IPO, may then be referenced as > xipo:SKU in any of the report schema's definitions and > declarations. > > Currently, the default namespace is > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema". If we make soap the > default namespace, then we will have to start qualifying types > from the above namespace explicitly, e.g., > xsd:nonNegativeInteger, instead of nonNegativeInteger. I don't > see why we should make such change now. > > I agree that we should keep our version of envelope.xsd on our > web site to allow existing implementations to continue to refer > to it. > > Regards, > > -Arvola > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com > <mailto:david@drummondgroup.com>> > To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com > <mailto:arvola@tibco.com>>; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org > <mailto:ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> > <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org > <mailto:ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>> > Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:59 AM > Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 73: > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelopenamespace > Arvola,I was updating as specified below and I think I see > another problem. Why do we declare the SOAP: namespace at > the top of the ...2_0.xsd AND import the schema AND declare > the SOAP:namespace on all of our examples? It seems like > the import is redundant? Either that or we do not need to > namespace qualify the SOAP elements. I would prefer the > remove the import.Also, even though we may not need the > ...envelope.xsd any more, we should NOT delete it since some > implementations are already pointing to it.Regards,David. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:21 PM > To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue 73: > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope namespace > > > The statement starting on line 618 (section 2.3.2 > xsi:schemaLocation attribute) in the revised spec from > David yesterday is no long true. I followed the above > URL and found that the SOAP envelope namespace has been > updated to use the W3C Recommended version of XML > Schema, i.e., http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema (instead > of http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema previously). > Therefore, there is no longer a need for us to provide > our own version of envelope.xsd. I suggest the ebMS spec > be updated accordingly, in section 2.3.2, the > introduction in Appendix A, the schema posted at > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/msg-header-2_0.xsd, > as well as in all of the examples. Regards,-Arvola >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC