Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Define multiple namespace and prefixes for XML requests #1456

Closed
tim-ebner opened this issue Jan 12, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Define multiple namespace and prefixes for XML requests #1456

tim-ebner opened this issue Jan 12, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@tim-ebner
Copy link

Hi everyone,

I try to model a request which requires xml as request body and multiple namespaces in one xml element:
example:

<Song	xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
			xmlns="http://example.com/Song"
			xmlns:art="http://www.example.com/Artist"
			xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.example.com/Song Song.xsd">
</Song>

I'm currently only able to define just one namespace:

Song:
  type: object
  xml:
    namespace: http://example.com/Song
  properties:
  ....

I think a possible workaround is to declare the other namespace attributes as normal elements and use "attribute: true".
I'm sorry if I misunderstand the usage of namespaces or the openapi xml element.

Is there a proper way to define multiple xml namespaces for one attribute in openapi 3.0.0?

@tim-ebner tim-ebner changed the title How to define multiple namespace and prefixes for XML request Define multiple namespace and prefixes for XML request Jan 12, 2018
@tim-ebner tim-ebner changed the title Define multiple namespace and prefixes for XML request Define multiple namespace and prefixes for XML requests Jan 12, 2018
@MikeRalphson
Copy link
Member

You are correct that multiple xml namespaces are not directly supported by the xml annotations in OpenAPI 3.0.x

I think a possible workaround is to declare the other namespace attributes as normal elements and use "attribute: true".

Your workaround sounds fine, as long as you are not reusing the schema definition for another content-type (such as json), in that case the additional properties would also be considered valid, whereas you might not want that.

@darrelmiller
Copy link
Member

darrelmiller commented Jan 19, 2018

We are considering supporting alternate schemas in v3.1 which would enable this scenario. See #1443

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants