OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[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



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