W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Feedback on arrays

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:26:41 +0100 (CET)
To: Robert van Engelen <engelen@cs.fsu.edu>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112132124410.9510-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Robert, please see my email [1] and search for the word
'seeming', about half way through. I reason there why forbidding
omissions in arrays is not inconsistent with allowing omissions
in structs.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0196.html



On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Robert van Engelen wrote:

 >
 > Dear Glen,
 >
 > You probably are already overrun with email on the sparse/p.t. arrays and
 > their merit or evil. I just would like you to read the following statement
 > in the hope it will help you make a decision (the following is a message
 > to soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com):
 >
 > I did not see any strong argument why sparse and/or p.t. arrays are "evil".
 >
 > Please consider the following reasoning:
 >
 > Elements can be omitted from complexTypes such as Struct. Elements in Structs
 > are ordered with accessor (names), so the omission is clear from the absense
 > of an accessor.
 >
 > Elements can be omitted from complexTypes such as arrays. In this case the
 > omission can ONLY be made clear with the position attribute since the ordering
 > of elements is positional.
 >
 > Since both are complexTypes, why would anyone impose an artificial restriction
 > on arrays? Or is the omission of elements in Structs also an "evil" feature?
 >
 > - Robert
 >
 >
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2001 15:26:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC