Markus,
I think this is a good idea. In instance documents, would these attributes then be on the ping, capabilities, metadata, inventory and search request elements? This is where they seem to belong.
However, inventory and search are already typed (to restrict the elements that can occur within them). If you agree that the top level request elements (ping, capabilities, etc.) are the place for these new attributes, then can I suggest using an attributeGroup to define them (perhaps called requestParameters) instead of a complex type. This way we avoid the messy complex type extension mechanism (which would require that inventoryParameters and searchParameters extend this new request parameters complex type).
My brain is already back in the parallel RDF universe, so this may be a foolish idea. If you've got a better solution in mind or see a problem with this approach, let me know. Here's a link to an article on this topic http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/10/29/derivation.html
-Steve
Döring, Markus wrote:
hi, this morning I was thinking whether we should create a common operation base type, that would have some attributes resembling the global GET parameters: http://ww3.bgbm.org/protocolwiki/GetInvokedOperations
envelope="true" xslt="http://my.home.tv/alive.xsl" xslt-apply="false"
This way we dont have to put those parameters into the header where they are not really belonging.
Any objections to modify the protocol this way?
Markus
tdwg-tapir mailing list tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org