A WSDL tool that is attempting to create stubs will have to be able to pull and parse the schema -- so, I would have to have a valid resource out there on the web.
<schema targetNamespace="xyz" xmlns:foo="http://some.valid.url";> <import schemaLocation="http://some.valid.url"; namespace="foo"/> <complexType name="complexOne"> <element name="elementOne" type="foo:ComplexTypeDefinedInFoo"/> </complexType> </schema> Perhaps I'm missing something -- but what's in an import without a location? Thanks, Cory -----Original Message----- From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: schema imports Cory, An import isn't required to specify a schema location. You just need to import the schema. My recommendation, though, is that you should define all types within a WSDL document in a single <schema> definition rather than splitting it into multiple schemas. I think you should report this as a bug. Anne At 02:08 PM 8/21/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks for the reply -- but when we get to dealing with imports -- you >resolve down to having to actually publish the schema at some URI for >reference -- something I was hoping I could avoid. I wish there was a >handy way to reference other schemas defined in the types section, but >alas, I've yet to find a way to pull this off. >-----Original Message----- >From: IdRatherBeSailing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:46 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: schema imports > > > Is the reference to element complexBar from namespace "bar" valid in > namespace foo" > > or do I need an explicit schema import declaration and if so -- how is > that done here? >Hmm, this appears to be one of the more vague areas of the WSDL >spec. WSDL1.1 is very vague about schema use (in fact doesn't explicitly >say targetNamespace is required, when it really is in practice), and >WSDL1.2 is clearer, but still a little ambiguous. >The following ref from WSDL1.2 seems to imply that a schema "embedded" in >a WSDL should be a valid standalone schema that has been copied into the >types section: >3.1.2 ><http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12/#embed-xsd>http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12/#embed-xsd >If you believe that implication, then your schema below is not a valid >standalone schema because it references an external (to itself) schema >that it does not import. >While this may work for some WS toolkits that handle more questionable >gray areas of the specs, your best bet for interoperability would be to >follow the spec more closely and use valid standalone schemas for embedded >(in the types section) wsdl schemas, and use nested imported (see 3.1.1 of >that same WSDL1.2 spec above) schemas for the externally defined types >that those embedded schemas >reference. ><http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12/#import-xsd>http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12/#import-xsd > > >Do you Yahoo!? ><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com>Yahoo! >SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
