- From: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:52:28 -0700
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Martin Gudgin writes: > > >> If schema descriptions of XMLP messages are available > >> then no specific encoding is necessary. I agree. The task, then, is to enumerate the set of things for which no schema descriptions are available. First stab: arrays, unions. > A rare case where I don't quite agree with Gudge, though I might agree > with the spirit of where he's trying to go. The SOAP V1.1 (chapter > 5)encoding, in particular, describes not just the legal forms of a > message, but the interpretation of those forms in a graph model. Noah, as your distinction between "the legal forms of a message" and "the interpretation of those forms" suggests, haven't we left the realm of encodingStyle and crossed over into semantics. Perhaps we need to have Martin define a set of "type attributes" for SOAP. ;>) F
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 15:54:06 UTC