| Subject: | 1 or 2 XSDs | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Jeff Parham (jeff...@windows.microsoft.com) | |
| Date: | Sep 25, 2001 11:01:30 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.dsml | |
Refine Search
| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Jeff Parham | Sep 25, 2001 11:01 am | |
| Tony Gullotta | Sep 25, 2001 11:41 am | |
| Christine Tomlinson | Sep 25, 2001 4:26 pm | |
| Jeff Parham | Sep 25, 2001 5:01 pm | |
| Christine Tomlinson | Sep 26, 2001 8:12 am | |
| Shon Vella | Sep 26, 2001 8:23 am |
| Subject: | 1 or 2 XSDs | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Jeff Parham (jeff...@windows.microsoft.com) | |
| Date: | Sep 25, 2001 11:01:30 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.dsml | |
Title: Message
I'd like to see us stick to one XSD.
The motivation for 2 XSDs seems to be that it might be burdensome for the DSMLv2 client/server to consume additional schema that it will not use. If that's true, then if we were going to optimize the number of XSDs wouldn't we optimize such that DSMLv2 clients and servers that implemented the "standard" transports would need only one XSD (that defined just what was needed for envelopes), rather than optimizing for possible future transports?
I don't see any real reason to pursue that path, however. Given the small amount of schema that is unique to either DsmlEnvelopeRequest/DsmlEnvelopeResponse or DsmlRequest/DsmlResponse it seems prudent to simply define a single XSD for DSMLv2.
Thanks, -J

