- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:32:13 -0800
- To: <ylafon@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
OK, I've swept Part 2[1] and the encoding schema[2]. Here are the diffs as I see them: 1. The schema contains an attribute declaration for a 'root' attribute, which the spec never mentions 2. The schema contains an element and type for a 'Struct' element, which the spec never mentions. 3. The schema contains an element and type for an 'Array' element, which the spec never mentions. I would also note that many of the types that we derive from built-in schema types don't work when incorporated into a soap encoded graph. This is because we state that outbound edges that are a second reference to the same node have a ref attribute and no content. Problem is, no content is not a valid lexical rep for, xs:int, for example. This means schema validation, if done, will fail. I do have a fix that's based on unions if people are interested. Gudge [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap-encoding.xsd
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 10:32:28 UTC