I know in ebMS 1.0-2.0 days, it was helpful to have things appear in
a predictable order, making it easier to eyeball problems. Not sure
that's still a valid concern, given the much better forensic tools
available today. I agree the restrictions are unnecessary, but I also
don't think it hurts to leave them as-is. I'd welcome a compelling
argument either way.
The mis-ordered examples were simply a result of hand-coding them,
during the period that schema development was lagging spec changes.
--Pete
Thus spoke Ric Emery (remery@us.axway.com) on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 01:58:46PM -0700:
> ...
> I have noticed that the schema uses xsd:sequence in many places where I
> would have expected xsd:all to be used. xsd:seqence forces an ordering of
> elements that I do not think should be required. For example PartyInfo
> requires that the From element precedes the To element.
> ...
> Is there a reason that we have made the schema strict in terms of element
> ordering? While typing this email I went back and looked at the ebMS 2.0
> schema, I notice that schema also enforces specific element ordering. So, I
> suppose it is not a big deal. It just strikes me as unnecessary. Though some
> of the examples in the PR02 draft do not validate because they do not match
> the schema element ordering.
--
Pete Wenzel