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

Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:47:48 +0100 (CET)
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
cc: <rsalz@zolera.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110311636170.24860-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Noah,
 would you also like all the positions to be in order?
 I don't think adding these constraints would be a bad idea as I
feel there may be cases where knowing the elements are in order
could help.
 It would be consistent, too, but I don't think the text without
these constraints is inconsistent.
 Anyway, I think I can support adding these two rules as phrased
below (and with possible editorial changes of course):
 "The presence of the enc:offset attribute indicates the
partially transmitted array contains no member on position below
the offset value."
 and
 "The members in a partially transmitted array must appear in
order, i.e. the rightmost index is changing most rapidly."

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

 > If both offset and positions are specified, would it be better or worse to
 > require that no position preceeds the offset?  That would allow you to
 > have implementations where there is, in general, a current offset starting
 > at 0 in all dimensions.  If explicit offset is provided, then positions
 > start from there.  No position may preceed current offset (in other words,
 > leverage the rule that all elements are in order.)
 >
 > Not a big deal...just a suggestion in case you all like it.
 >
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
 > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
 > One Rogers Street
 > Cambridge, MA 02142
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 >
 >
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 10:47:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT