> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Maguire [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, Jun 20, 2005 9:38 AM
> To:
> Subject: [wsrf] Reopen Issue WSRF110
>
> The proposed recommendation to WSRF110 was the addtion of an
> xs:any ##other
> to the BaseFaultType. This introduces a schema validation error for
> extensions.
>
> Text from Peter Niblett:
> If you extend the BFType in another namespace (as we do) and add extra
> elements in that extension, then the schema that does the
> extension (e.g.
> WSN) violates the Unique Particle Attribution constraint as
> it becomes
> non-determnistic. This is because BaseFaultType ends with <xs:any
> namespace="##other" minOccurs="0">. So in the extended fault
> type you can't
> tell whether elements in an extended instance are to be
> validated by this
> <any> or by the elements in the extended type
>
>
> We need to reopen and revisit the proposed recommendation
> (and subsequent
> action).
Somehow my previous email got sent out before we I had the chance to complete it. I was not going to say anything profound, but UPA is a common problem that is encountered by others and discussed within the XML Schema users workshop which I am attending this week [1]. Don't expect UPA rule to dissappear, so we need to reopen the issue.
Can someone refresh our memory why we added the xs:any to the base type instead of new extended fault types to add their own elements instead?
Thanks,
>
>
>
> Tom
>
--umit
>
> Frey's Law: "Every 5 years the number of architecture
> components double and
> the ability to comprehend them halves"
>
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-cfp.html
>
> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to
> add, but when
> there is nothing left to take away. - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
> T o m M a g u i r e
>
>
> STSM, On Demand Architecture
>
>
> Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
>
