Re: [ws-rx-editors] i086

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Anish,
  doi! much better - I like that
idea.
thanks,
-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

02/14/2006 06:57 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [ws-rx-editors] i086

Doug,

One way to go about doing this would be to use a named type (rather than
an anonymous type) and refer to it in the exemplar.

Something like:

<xs:simpleType name="MessageNumberType">
    <xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedLong">
      <xs:minInclusive value="1"/>
      <xs:maxInclusive value="9223372036854775807"/>
    </xs:restriction>
  </xs:simpleType>

and:

<wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement ...>
     <wsrm:Identifier ...> xs:anyURI </wsrm:Identifier>
     [ [ <wsrm:AcknowledgementRange ...
           Upper="wsrm:MessageNumberType"
           Lower="wsrm:MessageNumberType"/>
+

       | <wsrm:None/> ]
       <wsrm:Final/> ?
     | <wsrm:Nack> wsrm:MessageNumberType </wsrm:Nack>
+ ]

     ...
</wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement>

Of course keeping it as unsignedLong and specifying the restrictions in
text works too.

-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> Silly question but for i086 do anyone have an opinion on what the
pseudo 
> schema would look like?
> 
> *<wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement ...>*
> *    <wsrm:Identifier ...> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Identifier>*
> *    [ [ <wsrm:AcknowledgementRange ...*
> *          Upper="/xs:unsignedLong/"*
> *          Lower="/xs:unsignedLong/"/>
+*
> 
> *      | <wsrm:None/> ]*
> *      <wsrm:Final/> ?*
> *    | <wsrm:Nack>/ xs:unsignedLong /</wsrm:Nack>
+ ]*
> * *
>     *...*
> *</wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement>*
> 
> Do we keep the unsignedLong's and just talk about the max # in the
text? 
>  tried to find some other example to base it on but didn't find
one.
> I did change the actual schema for each occurrence to
> 
> <xs:simpleType>
>   <xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedLong">
>     <xs:minInclusive value="1"/>
>     <xs:maxInclusive value="9223372036854775807"/>
>   </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
> 
> per Anish's ammedment but the other (textual) references to "unsigned
> long" aren't as obvious to me.  Any suggestions?
> -Doug