Comments on: The WSDL 1.1 XML Namespace Screw Up

By: Administrator

Administrator — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:51:24 +0000

The problem is that nobody, anywhere was willing to accept WSDL 1.1 as a note, it has been universally treated as if it were a recommendation. This is a very common problem in standards where consumers of standards are woefully ignorant of what the different labels mean. As for why it has taken so long for WSDL 2.0, well, you know, boiling the ocean does take quite a bit of time.

By: Mark Hansen

Mark Hansen — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:51:53 +0000

WSDL 1.1 is a Note, not a Recommendation. Notes are not meant to be treated as bullet-proof specifications. It is not surprising that the schema in this Note is buggy, or that it needed to be refined via WS-I. The interesting issue is this: Why hasn’t the industry created a usable and more bullet-proof WSDL 2.0? The WSDL 1.1 Note is more than 4 years old now.

By: Yaron

Yaron — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:20:39 +0000

Dereferencing isn't the issue. The issue is that there now exist two incompatible schemas that are running around under identical namespace names. So someone who implements based on the schema in the WSDL 1.1 note will end up with the same result as someone implementing by downloading the schema from the URI or following the WS-I BP 1.1 spec.

By: Paul Brown

Paul Brown — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:27:06 +0000

At least to my knowledge, derferencing namespace URIs as though they were URLs and expecting to get schemas is not a requirement of the XML Schema specification or the WSDL specification. (It is specified as optional therein.) The presence of the W3C version of the WSDL 1.1 schema at the URL that is equal (as a string) to the namespace URI is simply a coincidence. You might compare some of the discussion here with your comments: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200410/msg00618.html