RE: Issue 177: missing elements same as nils? from Henrik Frystyk Nielsen on 2002-02-06 (xml-dist-app@w3.org from February 2002)

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:03:13 -0800
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0656A3A0@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> I think the proposal as you stated it below effectively states 
>that an omitted member is a NULL, am I right?

In our data model, yes, as we don't deal with default values.

> Why I think so: in our data model there are concrete values and 
>NULLs. A concrete value is serialized as the value per other 
>rules. A NULL then may be serialized with xsi:nil or as omission. 
>There is nothing else that can be serialized with xsi:nil or as 
>omission - therefore an omission is a NULL.
> Btw, if it is indeed so, I like this proposal very much because 
>NULLs can be taken for default values by the application - out of 
>scope of SOAP Encoding.

Exactly!

Henrik

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 15:04:06 UTC