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

Re: Rewording of section 4.1.2 based upon resolution of issue 195

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:10:49 +0200 (CEST)
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205171505220.19885-100000@mail.idoox.com>
Ray Whitmer wrote:

 > The real answer would have been a generic compound type, that
 > could have legitimately preserved and represented both.

 IMHO the real answer would have been a generic XML structure
with every parameter allowed to specify its encodingStyle.

 This is pretty much the same as a generic compound type in the
terms of flexibility (with the added possibility of attributes
like thisIsTheReturnValue="true") but we would gain the
independence from SOAP Encoding/Data Model. I don't think generic
compound type adds any value over generic XML.

 I did in fact suggest this almost a year ago but it was rejected 
in the RPCTF because a struct is easier to handle a more logical 
for an RPC, if I recall correctly.

 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Friday, 17 May 2002 09:10:59 GMT

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