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

Issue 302 (Again)

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:38:33 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02A9FDD4@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I notice from the minutes that people think I have amended the editor's
copy of the spec with proposed resolutions to issue 302[1]. This is not
the case. A change I made when I resolved EDITORIAL issue 353[2] also
provided one solution to 302. I also made a proposal for a different
solution. That proposal, as amended by discussion on this list, is
repeated below:

1.	Amend clause 4 of[3] to read:

	Certain graphs may sometimes contain a given edge and at other
	times that edge will be missing. Such missing edges can either
be
	omitted from the serialization or can be encoded as an element
	information item with an xsi:nil attribute information item
whose value
	is "true". 

2.    The above effectively covers ( or makes unnecessary ) the
'outbound only' case so we can amend the highlighted green text in[4] to
read: 

	An edge MAY have only a terminating graph node, that is be
inbound only.

Gudge

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x302
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x353
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#complexenc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#graphedges
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 20:39:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT