• To: 'Peter Rodgers' <pjr@1...>
• Subject: RE: Universal Schema to Validate an Arbitrary Well-Form ed Document
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:03:19 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Ok.  That 'loosens the coupling' more than I would expect 
but I understand what you want.

len


From: Peter Rodgers [mailto:pjr@1...]

On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 16:48, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> I don't understand that.  You are saying that the decision 
> to name the top level element is too constraining?

Yes - In the context where we want to auto-generate a WSDL description
for a document-based WS with the option to allow a user to supply a
hand-crafted override schema at a later time.

Actually I've probably been barking up the wrong tree. 

David Carlisle just suggested:

>for wsdl you don't need such a schema do you? Can't you just say that
>your input has type xs:anyType ?

This is probably the correct angle of attack.

Thanks for the suggestions.

• Prev by Date: xml prolog - what am I missing?
• Next by Date: Re: xml prolog - what am I missing?
• Previous by thread: xml prolog - what am I missing?
• Next by thread: RE: xml prolog - what am I missing?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread