Re: [ebxml-msg] Issue 73:http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelopenamespace

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, makes 
use of the simple type xipo:SKU that is defined in another schema, 
and in another target namespace. Recall that we used include so 
that the schema in ipo.xsd could make 
use of definitions and declarations from address.xsd. We 
cannot use 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 
element does not identify a namespace (although it does require a 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 
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 <>
To: 
  Arvola Chan <>;  
  <>
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:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:21 
    PM
To: 
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