- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:07:29 -0400
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, www-archive@w3.org
* Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com> [2001-08-30 12:56-0700]
> Are you saying that it is not clear from the text that the type is
> boolean? I would tend to say that we should refer to the schema rather
> than saying what type it is in the text - it seems more brittle to have
> the definition in multiple places.
Indeed, the text says that the value of the root attribute can be
either "true" of "false". Without saying that it's a boolean as
defined by schema, nothing in the text says that it can also be "1" or
"0".
I have no problem with adding a link to the schema too, but I think
it's underspecified right now.
The mustUnderstand attribute is clearly identified as a boolean[1]:
The mustUnderstand attribute information item has the following Infoset
properties:
* A local name of mustUnderstand;
* A namespace name of http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope;
* A specified property with a value of true.
The type of the mustUnderstand attribute information item is boolean in
the namespace http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema. Omitting this
attribute information item is defined as being semantically equivalent
to including it with a value of "false".
I think that the root attribute should get the same treatment. :-)
1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part1.html#soapmu
--
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 16:08:57 UTC