- From: Pete Hendry <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:36:55 +0000
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
- CC: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
> Multistructs can be modeled as structs with some members being > arrays, and that is IMO a very natural way of representing data > structures, which can contain more than one value under one > accessor. > Therefore I propose we remove the part of section 4.4.3 from the > second paragraph till the end of the section. The first paragraph > should stay, I think. > I would agree with this as it does not map easily. We support multistructs by using arrays. However, I think this argument should also be applied to sparse arrays. They could be implemented using structs of key/values and so do not need to be represented explicitely as they are currently (and it would be a lot easier to agree on the format if they were represented in this way!). Also, when using a mixture of literal and section 5, a struct in literal with an array looks like a multistruct in section 5. This can be confusing. Your argument is valid but goes against your desire to keep sparse arrays! They do not map to any programming language I know of and removing them does not remove any functionality from SOAP (as the application level can achieve the same). I would also like to drop multistructs as I don't think they provide anything that structs and arrays together don't already provide. Pete
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 16:38:57 UTC