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

Re: Issue 302 (Again)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:47:37 -0400
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5293A283.FB9AB6D3-ON85256C3F.005B6712@lotus.com>

I'm (finally) writing the closing text on issue 353.  Was all set to say 
"we have both dangling inbound and outbound edges, and text has been 
updated accordingly."  Gudge's suggestion below seems to suggest a plan 
where outbound only doesn't come up, but his note says: 

>> I also made a proposal for a different solution. 
>> That proposal, as amended by discussion on this 
>> list, is repeated below:

So, I'm a little unclear if this is a proposal that's being actively 
considered, is essential status quo, etc.  I don't actually have a strong 
feeling about the underlying design issue, but I note that my closing of 
this issue (which was presumed to be editorial) is due today.  If I get a 
clarifying answer before the call, I'll try and close the issue. Otherwise 
I'll slide the deadline a bit.

As I say, no big deal to me either way.  Once the group settles on a 
formulation, I'll be glad to write the closing text and we'll be done. 
Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
09/23/2002 08:38 PM

 
        To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Issue 302 (Again)



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 Wednesday, 25 September 2002 12:49:44 GMT

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