Or, to be specific, the change was made to section 10.9, but not to
section 5. Do we need to make section 5 be as specific as section 10?
Danny van der Rijn wrote:
It appears to me that issue 248 made it to the schema, in this case,
but not the actual spec text itself.
Danny
Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi Ron,
Thank for you catching these problems.
For the inconsistencies in the case of <if>-<then> and
<messageExchange>, it is related to the issues (e.g. issue 237)
was applied to the spec text but not to XSD.
I am going to apply these 2 changes during the lunch break here.
On the other hand, I am not sure I follow you 100% on "tExtensionActivity
has had a namespace attribute added to the
any
child. There is no mention of this, as far as I can find, in the latest
draft specification. (If this an attempt to say ##other?)"
It seems to me that you want to ask for a clarification spec text, but
not on the XSD itself (since the XSD cannot and does not have any
grammar enforcement on the "xsd:any" child). Do I follow you
correctly?
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Sent Tue
5/2/2006
6:11 AM
Subject Re:
[wsbpel] Problems with the latest schema
Are these inconsistencies worth opening an issue (or three?) about, to
resolve them, or do we just assume the specification is correct and the
schema just needs a bit of editing?
-Ron
Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
There
are
some inconsistencies between the specification text and the
"snapshot" of the schema Alex sent out April 29th.
- <if><then>. The production for <if>
includes
a
<then> element, where the specification just calls for an activity.
- tExtensionActivity has had a namespace attribute added to
the
any
child. There is no mention of this, as far as I can find, in the latest
draft specification. (If this an attempt to say ##other?)
Cheers,
-Ron
|