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

RE: Proposal for resolving 144, 161, 117: array serialization

From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:40:19 -0800
Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE102623C71@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I respectfully disagree that a SOAP layer that loses such information
could be described as "compliant" if by that is meant compliant with the
full SOAP specification in a general-purpose way.  (The absence of full,
general-purpose compliance may be perfectly satisfactory for many
applications; that is a different matter.)

First, the SOAP specification explicitly sanctions the use of a post
schema validation infoset.  See, for instance, SOAP 1.1 section 5 rule 2
part c. I believe that the proposed SOAP 1.2 is even more strong and
clear on this point.

Second, the encoding rules describe mapping between XML instances and
graphs.  If a particular SOAP support library happens to lose some
information along the way, information that is clearly described as part
of the mapping, then the support library does not support that part of
the spec, not in a general purpose way.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@zolera.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 5:46 PM
To: Andrew Layman; jacek@systinet.com; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposal for resolving 144, 161, 117: array serialization

>While the element names are not significant qua array element, they may
>be significant in other ways, such as affecting the post schema
>validation infoset, I would think.

I don't think you can count on that, when the SOAP layer assigns its own
names or strips them before passing the data up, that's compliant.
	/r$
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 15:40:51 UTC

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