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

 Asir,
 if we remove our "root" stuff, I'd prefer that we don't forbit 
"independent" elements because they might be useful. But where 
they might be useful I can also see that the application should 
take care of that, like I described before.
 Thanks for supporting the removal. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Asir S Vedamuthu wrote:

 > > 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,