W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-state@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Something else to consider

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:07:18 +0100
Message-ID: <BC28A9E979C56C44BCBC2DED313A447001EC2FCF@bond.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>

Umit,

First, let me apologise for not understanding your questions and
assuming that you didn't read Sanjiva's proposal. I thought you were
asking about what it meant to have a complex type as the content of the
get/set elements. My apologies.

I wanted to be controversial by giving the choice to interface designers
to have different complex types for the get and set operations. However,
this will probably go against the semantics with which people are used
to associate attributes. So I guess, Jim's proposal, which is similar to
the one I sent few weeks back but using Sanjiva's proposal is closer to
the commonly accepted attribute semantics. So, the group should consider
Jim's syntax rather than mine.

I agree with Jim's responses to the rest of the issues you raised.

.savas.
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 16:07:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:54 UTC