W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2004

Proposed text for issues rec20 and rec22 - Part 2

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:02:18 -0400
Message-ID: <5C76D29CD0FA3143896D08BB1743296A0101D154@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

The following is my action item results to consolidate and address the outstanding 
part 2 rec 20 issues in respect to the new position the WG has taken regarding 
XML 1.1.  

r, Mike

======================
3.1.2 Encoding Simple Values
<current>
The lexical value of a graph node representing a simple value is the sequence of 
Unicode characters identified by the character information item children of the 
element information item representing that node. The element information item 
representing a simple value node MAY have among its attributes a 'nodeType' attribute 
information item (see 3.1.7 nodeType Attribute Information Item). Note that certain 
Unicode characters cannot be represented in XML (see XML 1.0 [XML 1.0]). 
</current>

<proposed>
The lexical value of a graph node representing a simple value is the sequence of 
Unicode characters identified by the character information item children of the 
element information item representing that node. The element information item 
representing a simple value node MAY have among its attributes a 'nodeType' attribute 
information item (see 3.1.7 nodeType Attribute Information Item). Note that certain 
Unicode characters cannot be represented in XML (see XML 1.0 [XML 1.0] >,[ref to XML 1.1]<). 
</proposed>
======================
2. SOAP Data Model
<current>
The SOAP Data Model represents application-defined data structures and values as a 
directed edge-labeled graph of nodes. Components of this graph are described in the 
following sections.
</current>

<proposed>
The SOAP Data Model represents application-defined data structures and values as a 
directed edge-labeled graph of nodes. Components of this graph are described in the 
following sections. >Note that the SOAP Data Model is based on the XML Infoset that is 
serializable in XML 1.0 and as such does not support any of the parts of XML 1.1 that 
is inconsistent with that Infoset.<
</proposed>

I think this covers Noah's issues [1] in sections 
 - 2.1.1
 - 2.2, 2.3
 - 3.1.3
=======================
<issue>
3.1.4  [5] discusses computing type names.  We might want to make clear 
that, unless XML schema is revised, type names cannot have >XML 1.0 names. 
 Ref to schema recommendation.
</issue>

<open>
not sure what to propose here
</open>

=======================
<issue>
4.2.1 [6] on RPC invocation defers to appendix B on name mapping [7], 
which in turn refers to the [8] 1999 version of namespaces.  Probably not 
broken in an XML 1.1 world, but arguably surprising or confusing. Consider 
an RPC method name that has a character that is not a legal name character 
in the 1999 version of namespaces, but is legal according to the newer and 
also current "Namespaces in XML 1.1" [9].  Per our recommendation, that 
method name should be escaped, even if you are using XML 1.1.  As I say, 
not broken but confusing.
</issue>

<recommendation>
I think this is now a non-issue. All RPC method names would have to derive 
from an XML 1.0 serializeable Infoset.
</recommendation> 
=======================

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0004.html
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2004 15:02:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:18 GMT