On 20.06.2006, at 18:48, Aurelien Stebe wrote:
> To react to Paul's message, I would prefer VOResources to stay
> inside the WSDL, as this should be the only place it is needed and
> it makes one less namespace as Ray pointed out. Where do you use
> VOResources schema to validate documents Paul ? The current set of
> recommended or "standard" schema extensions is stated in the RI, in
> section 3.1.3
I use it quite frequently if I want to send someone a single file with several related resources in it that will validate. The alternative it to send each resource in a separate file or to send the multiple resource file with a non-standard schema file that declares all the necessary extension schema. It is only a convenience, but as far as I can see the advantages of keeping it separate outweigh the advantages of combining it into the WSDL.
Paul. Received on 2006-06-21Z08:59:35