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

RE: SOAP Encoding: Default values

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:38:11 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D067C7FEA@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "Andrew Layman" <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Proposal [10] for dealing with issue 177 [11] suggests that section 3.6
either be removed or downgraded to a note rather than a section.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0089.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x177

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Hadley [mailto:marc.hadley@sun.com] 
>Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 02:59
>To: Martin Gudgin
>Cc: XML Protocol Discussion
>Subject: Re: SOAP Encoding: Default values
>I think its trying to say: An omitted accessor is equivalent to an 
>included accessor with an xsi:nil attribute. The interpretation is 
>application dependent.
>Typical interpretation would be to substitue NULL or some application 
>dependent default value.
>Martin Gudgin wrote:
>> Section 3.6[1] of Part 2[2] states;
>> 'An omitted accessor element implies either a default value 
>or that no 
>> value is known. The specifics depend on the accessor, 
>method, and its 
>> context. For example, an omitted accessor typically implies a Null 
>> value for polymorphic accessors (with the exact meaning of Null 
>> accessor-dependent). Likewise, an omitted Boolean accessor typically 
>> implies either a False value or that no value is known, and 
>an omitted 
>> numeric accessor typically implies either that the value is zero or 
>> that no value is known.' I'm not convinced that this text is at all 
>> useful. It seems to say
>> 'If the accessor isn't there, then any number of things might be 
>> true...' and doesn't say much about what those things might be.
>> What is the paragraph *supposed* to be saying?
>> Gudge
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/11/10/soap12-part2.xml#IDA5FQLB
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/11/10/soap12-part2.xml
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:39:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC