RE: xmlns=" " in the doc\literal SOAP message

[Anne Thomas Manes]

Yes. I generally recommend using namespace identifiers rather than default 
namespaces.
(It's scary to think that you take my word as gospel. I do make mistakes.)

Anne

At 10:08 AM 9/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Anne,

So, given the following schema:

<schema targetName="http://www.foo.com"/>
       <element name="foo">
           <complexType>
                 <sequence>
                         <element name="bar" type="xsd:string"/>
                         <element name="baz" type="xsd:string"/>
                 </sequence>
           <complexType>
      </element>
</schema>
You would recommend that implementations produce the following realization 
of a schema instance:

<tns:foo xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com";>
         <bar>cory</bar>
         <baz>anne</baz>
</tns:foo>
I think most of the community considers your word the gospel, I hope they 
take notice of this exchange :)

Thanks,
Cory
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: xmlns=" " in the doc\literal SOAP message
Cory,

Yes -- you are right -- bar and baz are local elements. What that means is
that their element names are of type NCname (non-colon name) rather than
QName (qualified name).
Although most systems will accept:

<foo xmlns="http://www.foo.com";>
         <bar>cory</bar>
         <baz>anne</baz>
</foo>
it isn't accurate, because it implies that bar and baz are namespace 
qualified.

The proper way to represent the document would be:

<tns:foo xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com";>
         <bar>cory</bar>
         <baz>anne</baz>
</tns:foo>
or this:

<foo xmlns="http://www.foo.com";>
         <bar xmlns="">cory</bar>
         <baz xmlns="">anne</baz>
</foo>
It would be wrong to produce a document like this:

<tns:foo xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com";>
         <tns:bar>cory</bar>
         <tns:baz>anne</baz>
</tns:foo>
Also note that your schema definition was incomplete. It should look like 
this:

<schema targetName="http://www.foo.com"/>
       <element name="foo"
           <complexType>
                 <sequence>
                         <element name="bar" type="xsd:string"/>
                         <element name="baz" type="xsd:string"/>
                 </sequence>
           <complexType>
      </element>
</schema>
or like this

<schema targetName="http://www.foo.com";
                xmlns:tns="http://www.foo.com"/>>
         <complexType name="foo>
                 <sequence>
                         <element name="bar" type="xsd:string"/>
                         <element name="baz" type="xsd:string"/>
                 </sequence>
         <complexType>
           <element name="foo" type="tns:foo"/>
</schema>
(there are three or four other ways to describe it -- but the point is that
you must define the element named "foo")
Anne

At 09:02 AM 9/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Anne,
>
>When you say "local" elements -- do you mean local to the parent element
>as defined in the schema?  In the following example, would bar and baz be
>considered local elements?
>
><schema targetName="http://www.foo.com"/>
>         <complexType name="foo>
>                 <sequence>
>                         <element name="bar" type="xsd:string"/>
>                         <element name="baz" type="xsd:string"/>
>                 </sequence>
>         <complexType>
></schema>
>
>I would think when this was serialized to the wire you'd see something like:
>
><foo xmlns="http://www.foo.com";>
>         <bar>cory</bar>
>         <baz>anne</baz>
></foo>
>
>After all, don't bar and baz technically belong to the foo.com namespace?
>
>Thanks for any input,
>Cory WIlkerson
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:40 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: xmlns=" " in the doc\literal SOAP message
>
>
>Dimuthu,
>
>Yes. It's okay for empty namespace definitions to go across the wire. In
>fact, it some cases it might be required.
>
>In your SOAP request, the <query> element defines a default namespace
>(xmlns="blah" as opposed to xmlns:foo="blah"), which then applies to all
>subelements of the <query> element, unless it is overridden by another
>default namespace definition. If the <description> and <ItemId> elements
>are local elements to <query>, then they should not be namespace qualified,
>and in that case, you should specify an empty default namspace definition
>in each of these subelements to override the active default namespace.
>
>Now, if the <description> and <ItemId> are global elements, then this
>message would be in error.
>
>So whether or not this message is correct depends on the schema definition
>for the message.
>
>Anne
>
>At 02:20 AM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'm trying to write a doc\literal web service and my soap message appears
> >as below.........
> >
> ><query xmlns="urn:HistorySriLanka">
> >    <description xmlns="">Wood carving of an Elephant</description>
> >    <ItemId xmlns="">ER234</ItemId>
> ></query>
> >
> >Has anybody else has come across a situation like this? Is it ok for empty
> >xmlns="" tags to go in the wire? Any help is greatly appreciated.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Dimuthu
> >
> >
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> ><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com>Yahoo!
> >SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software