There have been SOAP1.1 schema[1] updated so as to a) fix errata
and b) use XML Schema REC. I might suggest that we adopt these
instead of the one I hacked together to get a parser to
accept our schema.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jul/0074.html
Cheers,
Chris
Arvola Chan wrote:
> Doug:
>
>
>
> I tried removing the ds, xlink, and soap namespace declarations. XML
> Authority reports lots of errors on the resulting schema, one of which is:
>
>
>
> Imported schema must have a target namespace in order to 'import'.
> Namespace information will be lost.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I don't think it is OK to remove these namespace declarations.
>
>
>
> I didn't realize that the schema in
> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope namespace is for SOAP 1.2. In
> that case, it would be inappropriate for us to use the schema directly
> available from that location. Still, I think section 2.3.2 is
> technically incorrect, because it currently states:
>
>
>
> "
>
> The SOAP namespace:
>
> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/
>
> resolves to a schema conforming to an early Working Draft version of the
> W3C XML Schema specification, specifically identified by the following URI:
>
> http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema
>
> "
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Arvola
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Bunting < <mailto:>>
> To:
> <mailto:>
> < <mailto:>>
> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg]
> Issue73:http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelopenamespace
>
> Arvola,
>
> I agree we need all of the current import statements and namespace
> declarations. Namespaces must be declared where they are used (in
> both instance and schema documents). Schema documents need the
> import as well for reasons documented in the excerpt below.
>
> About the only thing that might be removable is the ds, xlink and
> soap namespace declarations in our schema document. (I haven't
> tried this removal with existing XML parsers but it might work since
> those namespaces are referenced only within attribute content.) It
> wouldn't be a worthwhile change at this stage because the
> declarations in question certainly do no harm and have no effect on
> users of the schema.
>
> On your original question: The new schema you mention is for SOAP
> 1.2 which remains under development. While SOAP 1.1 is only a Note,
> it is at least more stable than a draft Recommendation. Further,
> switching from SOAP 1.1 to 1.2 would be a rather large change to our
> document.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
> Arvola Chan wrote:
>
> 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 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#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 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#element-include> so
> that the schema in ipo.xsd
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#ipo.xsd> could make use of
> definitions and declarations from address.xsd
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#address.xsd>. We cannot use
> include <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#element-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
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#element-include> element does
> not identify a namespace (although it does require a
> schemaLocation
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#attribute-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
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#element-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 <
> <mailto:>>
> To: Arvola Chan <
> <mailto:>>;
> <mailto:>
> <
> <mailto:>>
> 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
>
