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

 Simon, 
 In our opinion this is consistent with the handling of 
mustUnderstand and actor/role attributes.
 Back to itemType: an implementation IMO violates nothing if it
does not include/process the itemType attribute. Do you agree?
 On the other hand, if an implementation does not use a WSDL (or
other) description of messages, the information coming in the
itemType attribute may be very handy. I think the worth of
itemType is the same as the worth of the size in the "leftmost"  
dimension of the array, which too can be discovered by inspecting
the whole array. Do you agree with this?
 If you agree with both my statements, I don't see why you would 
want the removal of itemType attribute. 
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Simon Fell wrote:

 > Wasn't there a recent discussion on issues to do with defaulting
 > mustUnderstand & actor [i need to check the archives], is this
 > consistent with the results of that ?
 > on a related note, IMHO this makes the case for itemType weaker, I'm
 > still of the opinion that itemType is redundant, and results in
 > array's being a special case that force you to include type
 > information on the wire.
 > 
 > Cheers
 > Simon
 > www.pocketsoap.com
 > 
 > On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:34:43 +0100 (CET), in soap you wrote:
 > 
 > > 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 Wednesday, 13 February 2002 09:07:25 UTC