is the w3c's schema for wsdl and wsdl/soap binding possibly buggy ? _clb_

Discussion in 'XML' started by Chris Bedford, Aug 21, 2003.

  1. Hi...
    would be interested in the feedback of wsdl experts on this.

    I think there are two bugs in the w3c's wsdl/soap schemas.

    First, in section A 4.1 there is this element, with no closing tag:
    <element ref="soap:headerfault">


    Secondly, the schema for WSDL defines binding operations from the
    following
    type definition ->>>>

    <complexType name="binding_operationType">
    <complexContent>
    <extension base="wsdl:startWithExtensionsType">
    <sequence>
    <element name="input"
    type="wsdl:startWithExtensionsType"
    minOccurs="0"/>
    ETC..

    note that startWithExtensionsType is an *abstract type*.
    This means when you try to create a document instance of a wsdl with a
    soap binding and then try to validate it against this schema you get
    an error because there is no 'instantiable' type for the wsdl:input
    element.

    In xmlspy, when you validate against this schema
    you get an error message along the lines of 'wsdl:input' is declared
    as abstract-'true'; please use xsi:type to specify a derived type that
    is not abstract or use a member of a substitution group instead.


    I looked on the w3c site to see if there was a mailing list to report
    potential bugs in this area, but could not find any. Maybe someone
    from the w3c reads this list and can tell me if I'm on target or if
    I've missed something?

    thanks !
    Chris
    Chris Bedford, Aug 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David Zimmerman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    337
    Chris Bedford
    Aug 15, 2003
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    345
  3. Frank
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,559
    David Dorward
    May 3, 2004
  4. Steve Jorgensen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    557
    Steve Jorgensen
    Aug 9, 2005
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    366
Loading...

Share This Page