W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

RE: interchange issue: empty properties vs. absent properties

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 06:31:33 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E802B82645@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Yes, cmsoap:soapFaultSubcodes for instance.  But I do now feel that
fixing Woden's id-null issue will probably moot this point.

 

________________________________

From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:37 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: interchange issue: empty properties vs. absent properties

 

If that is ALWAYS true - empty = absent - then that's fine, but I
thought there were cases where empty != absent?

 

Tony Rogers

CA, Inc

Senior Architect, Development

tony.rogers@ca.com

co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS

co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Thu 25-May-06 3:22
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: interchange issue: empty properties vs. absent properties

The spec equates an empty property and an absent property.  I'm finding
a few places in the interchange format where Woden generates an empty
property, e.g. <elementDeclarations/>, while I simply omit this element.

 

Seems like the simplest solution would be to canonicalize such that
empty properties (which may be all empty elements with no attributes)
away - i.e. delete them during canonicalization.  Does that sound
reasonable?

 

 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com
<mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com>   ][  http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes
<http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes>   ]

 
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2006 13:31:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:40 GMT