Return-Path: 
 <axis-dev-return-12779-apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 65237 invoked by uid 500); 22 Aug 2002 17:09:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:axis-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 65228 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2002 17:09:35 -0000
Message-ID: 
 <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB0248E695@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
To: "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
Subject: RE: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/wsdd WSDD.xsd
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:09:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N


xsd:any

Infinite extensibility for new stuff, but explicit validation of core stuff.

--G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Loughran [mailto:steve_l@iseran.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:09 PM
> To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/wsdd WSDD.xsd
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
> To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:03 AM
> Subject: RE: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/wsdd WSDD.xsd
> 
> 
> >
> > I think this is a great idea, and would help us make the 
> schema that much
> better, too.
> >
> > Eventually I'd like to see the format move away from things like:
> >
> >    <parameter name="foo" value="bar"/>
> >
> > to:
> >
> >    <foo>bar</foo>
> >
> > Sam has suggested this sort of thing several times, and I 
> agree.  The
> relevance here is that this would likely make it easier to 
> schema-validate
> WSDD files, at least in terms of confirming the presence of 
> necessary stuff.
> 
> no, we should move to RDF to make things harder :)
> 
> Actually I semi-agree; the problem with the <foo>bar</foo> 
> approach is it
> means a schema roll to add a new parameter.
> 
> Core stuff can be done in such a manner, but we still need to let the
> optional stuff go in somehow.
>