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

Re: issue 168 proposal: xsi:type of external references in Encoding

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:08:05 -0500
To: jacek@systinet.com
Cc: xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF7E9A179E.91D3157F-ON85256B3A.00694910@lotus.com>
Jacek Kopecky writes:

>> Noah, I agree with your split of 1.  You once proposed
>> a text on 1a by adding that external references,
>> otherwise untyped, have no type. I suggested that
>> instead of this we just remove the rule which says
>> every value has a type. Which would you prefer, if the
>> WG decides to go 1a?  Best regards,
>> 
>> Jacek Kopecky
>> 

I'm sorry but I'm not remembering the rewrite you had in mind, and I'm not 
quite getting the distinction you make above.  I'm certainly against 1b 
(from my note below).   I don't see much distinction between saying that 
values MAY be untyped vs. that values MAY have no type.  Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------







Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
01/03/2002 01:43 PM

 
        To:     Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus@Lotus
        cc:     xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        Re: issue 168 proposal: xsi:type of external references in Encoding


Noah,
I agree with your split of 1.
You once proposed a text on 1a by adding that external
references, otherwise untyped, have no type. I suggested that
instead of this we just remove the rule which says every value
has a type. Which would you prefer, if the WG decides to go 1a?
Best regards,

Jacek Kopecky

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



On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

>
> Jacek Kopecky writes:
>
> >> IMO this shows that in SOAP Encoding we don't
> >> really want either
> >>  1) the strong requirement that every value
> >>     is XSD typed, or
> >>  2) to use XSD simple types, or
> >>  3) to allow external references.
> >> Pick one. I favor 3 over 1 over 2. 8-)
>
> The wording of 1 is potentially ambiguous.  It might be taken to mean 
that
> we want a design where:
>
> 1a) It's OK to have values that are untyped
> - or -
> 1B) All values must be typed, but some of those types need not be XSD 
types
> (e.g. some might be MIME types or some such)
>
> My own leanings would be either toward 1a (base typing on XSD, but allow
> untyped nodes), with a second choice of 3 (external hrefs are not
> considered part of the encoded graph at all.)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 15:20:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT