RE: [uddi-spec] Changes to UDDI Schemas and WSDL to support code generation

["Matthew J. Dovey" <matthew.dovey@oucs.ox.ac.uk>]

> (iii) is the interesting case, which is the one I though we had been
> discussing all along.  Certainly some clients would be able 
> to form requests
> that are compliant to the lite schema, but fail validation under the
> normative schema.  But without a JAX-RPC-compatible schema 
> these clients
> would not be able to form *any* kind of requests, so lite 
> schema is still
> progress in the right direction.

The problem is that we are chasing a moving target. As Anne and Ugo have
pointed out JAX-RPC is moving towards a more WS-I compliant version (and
I'm not sure whether John was basing his analysis on JAX-RPC 1.0 or
1.1), so it might be that we spend time addressing issues which turn out
no longer to be issues.

>After all, even using the current
>normative schema clients can form a wide variety of invalid requests
that
>are schema-compliant (how about a <find_business generic="2.0"/> for
one?).

Agreed - which means that there is some argument for simplifying certain
structures (e.g. the sequence/choice one) even if it introduces invalid
requests not caught by schema-validation, however, I still think if we
did that level of change (and that sort of change was typical of what
would be needed to increase the toolkit support) those changes should be
in the normative schema.

My point about clients and servers not being consistent about what XML
they validate, is due to the fact that I am uncomfortable having two
non-isomorphic schemas for the same namespace.


Matthew