RE: Action 2003-01-21 for Umit

Gudge, 

if a binding is allowed to say (e.g. using an XPath) which infoset items
defined by a schema are serialized where (e.g. an attachment, or a
header), I'm reminded strongly of the "encoded" style that we dropped. 

What you seem to be saying is that the binding needn't follow the XML
Schema fully; or you're defining a serialization of an infoset different
from XML 1.0, but sort of implicitly. 

So, the logical step would be to define the new infoset serialization
explicitly, and I think there would be a big backlash because of
potential interop and/or simplicity issues.

I believe that if we describe something using XML Schema, it'd better be
XML. 8-)

Best regards,

                Jacek Kopecky
                Systinet Corporation
                http://www.systinet.com/


On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 19:39, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Umit Yalcinalp [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com] 
> > Sent: 27 February 2003 17:29
> > To: Martin Gudgin
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Action 2003-01-21 for Umit
> 
> <SNIP/>
> 
> > Before starting to debate the rest, lets agree on the common 
> > assumptions first. 
> > 
> > In the January f2f, the idea explored was that when a single 
> > schema replaces the message construct, the concept of parts 
> > was going to be moved from the abstract to the concrete 
> > binding. For some of us, having *multiple* parts is necessary 
> > in the binding. 
> 
> By which you mean what? Surely a binding just describes concretely what
> a message looks like on the wire... Are you just asking for the ability
> to say 'this element goes in the body, that element goes in a header'?
> Or 'this element goes in the body, that element goes as an attachment'?
> Or are you asking for more than that?
> 
> > So the exercise was to come up with schema 
> > examples and explore how they will exhibit themselves in the binding!
> 
> That much I understood, but the discussion of 'parts' confused me.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Given this assumption, the idea is to explore how the parts 
> > are going to reappear in the binding as they would be 
> > dissappearing from the abstract. So a "mapping" is necessary.
> 
> So, hopefully, by 'mapping' you mean specifying which
> elements/attributes go where...
> 
> > 
> > My task was to present complex schema examples. You guys were 
> > going to show the mapping in the binding. Am I missing something?
> 
> Obviously I was... 
> 
> Gudge

Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 08:50:17 UTC