W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Possibly defaulted (was RE: Minutes for Thurs 7th Feb 2002 Telcon)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:34:43 +0100 (CET)
To: Simon Fell <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
cc: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202121126380.7609-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Simon, (and maybe Andrew 8-) )
 we agree that the words "(possibly defaulted)" in rule 2 in 
Encoding are offensive. 8-)
 The Encoding task force suggests that we resolve this editorial
issue by removing these offending parenthesized words. The
situation would become equal to that with the mustUnderstand
attribute - effectively it has the default value of "false", even
though this default value would not show in the infoset that the
SOAP Node receives; the node must act as if the value was there
as "false".
 Same here, if we're in an array and there is no itemType 
attribute present, the Encoding processor must act as if it were 
present with the value {xml-schema-namespace}anyType.
 Is this satisfactory?

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Andrew Layman wrote:

 > Re
 > 
 > 6) Encoding use of default attributes, see item 5 in [3]
 > Agreed that text in rule 2 is confusing.
 > NEW ACTION: MJH to remove "(possibly defaulted)" from rule 2. NEW
 > ACTION: JK to contact originator with proposed resolution.
 > 
 > I might be that originator.  :-)
 > 
 > 
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 05:34:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT