Also, if you look at the WSDL schema, you see that any of the top level elements may be specified more then once (except 'types'). There seems also no constraints on the order in which they have to appear. You can for example first specify 'types' and then 'import'. From the WSDL schema point of view you should also be able to specify a 'binding' and then all the rest. This will not work, since the references made in the binding need the previous elements which are in this case defined later on. But it is valid according to the schema.
This is a valid WSDL fragment. The schema defined in types is never used (so its superflous) but it is nevertheless schema valid...
Am I missing something here ? ....
posted 13 years ago
Ok, what the MZ notes say is taken from the BP, so it is indeed correct To be BP conform, the order is fixed and the elements must appear in the stated order. Nevertheless it WSDL schema valid.
So, I have two question:
1. The MH is incorrect ? the 'should' should be a 'must' to be BP compliant ?
2. How can you validate the WSDL against the BP rules then ? When I create a WSDL document, how am I supposed to know that the 'types' must be declared after the import ?....
Because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind - Seuss. Tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop