W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2003

Diffs between Part 2 and encoding schema

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:32:13 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30D67@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <ylafon@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>

OK, I've swept Part 2[1] and the encoding schema[2]. Here are the diffs
as I see them:

1.	The schema contains an attribute declaration for a 'root'
attribute, which the spec never mentions

2.	The schema contains an element and type for a 'Struct' element,
which the spec never mentions.

3.	The schema contains an element and type for an 'Array' element,
which the spec never mentions.

I would also note that many of the types that we derive from built-in
schema types don't work when incorporated into a soap encoded graph.
This is because we state that outbound edges that are a second reference
to the same node have a ref attribute and no content. Problem is, no
content is not a valid lexical rep for, xs:int, for example. This means
schema validation, if done, will fail. I do have a fix that's based on
unions if people are interested.

Gudge

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap-encoding.xsd
	
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 10:32:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:08:55 GMT