RE: where are we?

At 08:23 AM 1/29/2003, Dale Moberg wrote:



>From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
>"(1) There is a lot of interest in removing message along the lines that
>Roberto has proposed.  However, there is concern that this might make
>the bindings more complicated, or at least eliminate shortcuts a binding
>could take (HTTP GET binding parts as parameters, for instance).  We're
>working up some detailed examples.  My impression is that if nothing
>nasty turns up the proposal has a good chance of being accepted."
>
>I agree with Jonathan's summary, though an inertia faction (leaving
>message alone) also had support.

Actually, as i recall from the (straw) votes we were almost evenly divided. 
So I think its probably fairer to characterize the sentiment as there was 
interest in pursuing the proposal and spending some time on working through 
the technical details and implications.

Once we have a full understanding, I think we'll be in a better position to 
make a reasoned determination.

cheers,
   jeff


>In addition, at least some of us wonder how foreign type systems can
>really be supported when required to stuff that information into an xsd
>complextype. While the "parts" are apparently to be referenced by
>pointing at parts within the complextype xsd, we cannot use our
>substitution group extension approach with xsd complex types ('cause we
>don't control xsd schema...) [At least this is what I gathered from
>Gudge-- hope I did not represent him.] So I think that while the
>multiplicity of parts (and optionality, and other cardinality related
>stuff) seems covered under Roberto's one complex type approach, the
>support for foreign type systems is left dangling and unclear. [I don't
>myself consider saying "here is an info item that would be a bunch of
>base64 cdata" as being support for foreign types...]

Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 11:58:15 UTC