Doug:
Here is the restated issue, in XML format:
<issue>
<issue-num>229</issue-num>
<title>Fix incorrect
statement about SOAP namespace</title>
<locus>line
616</locus>
<section>2.3.2</section>
<priority>editorial</priority>
<topic>spec</topic>
<status>Active</status>
<originator><a href='mailto:'>Arvola
Chan</a></originator>
<responsible></responsible>
<description>The
following is no longer true: 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.
The ebXML SOAP extension element schema has been defined using the W3C
Recommended version of the XML Schema specification [XMLSchema] (see Appendix
A).</description>
<proposal>Change to: The SOAP namespace:
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope
used to resolve to a SOAP 1.1 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.
Recently, the URI http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope
has been updated to resolve to a schema intended for SOAP 1.2 which is still
under development. Neither is suitable for use with the current version of the
ebXML Messaging Services. The ebXML SOAP extension element schema is based on
SOAP 1.1 and has been defined using the W3C Recommendation version of the XML
Schema specification [XMLSchema] (see Appendix A). </proposal>
<resolution>none</resolution>
</issue>
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From:
Doug Bunting <>
To: Arvola
Chan <>
Cc:
<>
Date:
Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg]
Issue73:http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelopenamespace
Oops,
that's a separate issue and I'd agree it's real. Could you send the
appropriate XML fragment along to the list?
thanx,
doug
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 <>
To:
<>
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,
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
