Re: Action item (2003-10-30) Proposed Revised wording and splitti ng of rules for RPC

Liu, Kevin wrote:

>Hi Umit,
> 
>  
>
>>The child elements MAY contain the following attributes:
>>      xsi:Nillable, minOccurs and maxOccurs
>>    
>>
>
>What's the semantic when maxOccurs of a child element is >1? Is it supposed to be mapped to an array (or similar compound construct) or multiple parameters? Given the conventional rule of "Each element represents a single parameter irrespective of its cardinality", I would guess the former case is intended, but just want to make sure I got the intention right.
>
>My apology if this is already covered by any discussion I missed.  
>
Kevin,

Definitely the former. This is why we have the rule that you quoted.

Cheers,

--umit

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Umit Yalcinalp [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, Nov 02, 2003 01:33 PM
>To: WS Description List
>Subject: Action item (2003-10-30) Proposed Revised wording and splitting of rules for RPC
>
>
>Per my action item dated 2003-10-30 (it was 2003-10-23, but not 
>recorder), here is the proposed wording for the rpc rules splitting the 
>rules into two buckets and incorporating the agreed items [1] on Oct 
>23rd 2003 concall.
>
>--umit
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0058.html
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com