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 15:57:36 -0000
Message-ID: <015c01c1d1ba$4a8b7420$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
OK, I'm happy to completely disallow out-of-line serialization ( makes my
job easier ).

Roots are currently not in the rewrite because Noah and I wanted more input
from the WG. I think we now have ( at least some of ) that input

Thanks

Gudge

----- 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 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: The reason for roots?


> Gudge, replies inside. 8-)
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
>  > Subject: Re: The reason for roots?
>  >
>  > >  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 1.1, MUST (except for strings and arrays of bytes, I
> think).
>
>  > >  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
>
> Yes, which would reintroduce the explicit statements from SOAP
> 1.1, maybe lessening the MUST above to MAY. Do we want to
> reintroduce this complexity?
>
>  > >  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.
>
> OK, I understand.
>
>  > Still not convinced we need the notion of root at all in the
encoding...
>
> If we allow some people to serialize stuff out-of-line, we must
> say where to put these out-of-line non-serialization-roots and
> how to know which is which.
>
> I'm quite OK with the current rewrite's version which disallows
> that out-of-line serialization, thus obviating the root
> attribute. Oh, I think that should go from the rewrite if we
> don't reintroduce the out-of-line serialization.
>
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 10:56:22 GMT

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