Will the real WSDL 1.1 please stand up?


There are different versions of WSDL 1.1 out there:

http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/2003-02-11.xsd
————————————————–
<xs:complexType name=”tPart”>
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:extension base=”wsdl:tExtensibleAttributesDocumented”>
<xs:attribute name=”name” type=”xs:NCName” use=”required”/>
<xs:attribute name=”element” type=”xs:QName” use=”optional”/>
<xs:attribute name=”type” type=”xs:QName” use=”optional”/>
</xs:extension>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>


and

http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl
—————————-
<complexType name=”partType”>
<complexContent>
<extension base=”wsdl:openAtts”>
<attribute name=”name” type=”NMTOKEN” use=”optional”/>
<attribute name=”type” type=”QName” use=”optional”/>
<attribute name=”element” type=”QName” use=”optional”/>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>






According to the WS-I Basic Profile, the WSDL at http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/2003-02-11.xsd is the recommended approach. This means that most implementations probably want to avoid using the sample in the W3C Note on WSDL.