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

Re: Proposal for issue 78: RPC structs and Encoding root attribute

From: Asir S Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:00:27 -0500
Message-ID: <00df01c1b94d$c909fd60$051a030a@webmethods.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> How do you feel about removing the "root" stuff altogether?

I am in favor of this

> I myself cannot see a reason why any
application would want to put the elements as "independent" -
maybe somebody enlightens me. As long as that does not happen,

Me too

If we take this route, is there a need to forbid independent elements OR,
just leave the complexity of root and non-root processing to the
application?

Asir

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for issue 78: RPC structs and Encoding root attribute


Marc,
 your rewrite is certainly cleaner, thank you for it. But in any
case the vague part stays: "...and element information items that
may appear to be roots of a graph but are not." What does it mean
to "may appear to be root"?
 I would like to see us mandate that the non-roots be marked as
such - your option b.
 How do you feel about removing the "root" stuff altogether?
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 >
 > >  2) Rephrase the long paragraph into:
 > >  >>The root attribute information item can be used to label
 > > serialization roots that are not true roots of an object graph so
 > > that the object graph can be deserialized. True roots of a
 > > serialized graph have the implied value of "true" for this
 > > attribute information item or they may explicitly be labeled as
 > > true roots with a root attribute information item with a value of
 > > "true". An element information item that is not a serialization
 > > root but may appear so SHOULD/MUST explicitly be labeled as not
 > > being a serialization root with a root attribute information item
 > > with a value of "false".<<
 > >
 >
 > This is still potentially a bit confusing I think. How about:
 >
 > "The root attribute item is used to distinguish between element
 > information items that are true roots of a serialised graph and element
 > information items that may appear to be roots of a graph but are not.
 > Element information items that are true roots MAY be labelled with a
 > root attribute information item with a logical value of "true". Element
 > information items that are not roots MAY be labelled with a root
 > attribute information item with a logical value of "false".
 >
 > We may want to change the two MAYs to SHOULDs or MUSTs depending on how
 > we see root being used. Personally I think it would be preferable if we
 > mandate one of either:
 >
 > (a) the root is labelled with "true" or,
 > (b) the non-roots are labelled with "false".
 >
 > Rather than leave it up to a sender to decided which to do.
 >
 >
 > regards,
 >
 > Marc.
 >
 >
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 09:03:00 GMT

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