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

Re: The reason for roots?

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:04:55 -0000
Message-ID: <010801c1d1aa$8cce2450$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: The reason for roots?


> Gudge,
>  the problem is that in SOAP 1.1 serialization rules would say
> that C must be serialized "as an independent element on top level
> of serialization" because it has multiple references to it.

MUST be or MAY be?

>  In SOAP 1.2 we haven't forbidden this, although we don't talk
> about this any more (so if somebody started from reading SOAP
> 1.2, they would not even think of serializing something
> out-of-line).

Agreed, although I could add a clause into section 3.1.1 stating how
out-of-line serialization would work

>  Now if non-roots (non-serialization-roots, that is) can be
> anywhere in the message, not just as descendant EIIs of a
> serialization root, we have to mark some of them. SOAP 1.1 took
> the approach of marking the non-roots that appear somewhere
> funky, but this was not crisp enough. So we can either mandate
> marking the roots or the non-roots. We chose roots.
>  Oh, BTW, I thought my graph below has two roots (according to
> your original definition), not zero.

No. It has no root because of rule 2
There is no way to get from A to B or B to A. Remember it is a *directed*
graph.

Still not convinced we need the notion of root at all in the encoding...

Gudge
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 09:03:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT