It does matter when I specify my production rules to generate my DTD or
Schema, which will be Part 4 of the Reg-Rep specification. I would rather
keep it simple by specifying one argument (string) versus several (any SOAP
type), and one return. It is my belief that I either model it correctly to
so that either 1) "SOAP compliant" messages fall out of the model, or 2)
"SOAP-like" messages which ignore the types in the SOAP specificaiton. It
will dictate how my UML model for the operation signatures are created.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 12:10 PM
To: Nieman, Scott
Cc: 'Eric Newcomer'; [email protected]; ebXML-Architecture
List
Subject: RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata
Message text written by "Nieman, Scott"
> Why should SOAP detail these types at all, versus just referencing
a DTD or Schema that the "type" must adhere too? Its really that
simple.</Scott>
<<<<<<
Scott,
Major agreed. If you open this Pandora's Box (which SOAP is doing!),
then you let in total chaos.
We all either agree to use a base standard and then strive to make
it work, enhance it et al - but charging off and creating a backdoor
where you can map anything else to whatever, is probably not
a cool idea at this point.
Example : - SOAP arrays - please, what's that? XML already happily allows
you to morph an array into a valid XML structure, so this is just
redundant confusion factor.
It's important to stay focused too. The SOAP overlap in the Transport WG
arena
is obvious - its less clear in RegRep.
Thanks, DW.
