- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:45:19 +0200
- To: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
+1 indeed. JJ. Roberto Chinnici wrote: > > How about a further improvement? Instead of > > <wsoap:code value="xs:QName"> > <wsoap:subcode value="xs:QName"> > <wsoap:subcode>...</wsoap:subcode> > </wsoap:subcode>? > </wsoap:code> > > we do: > > <wsoap:code value="list of xs:QName"> > </wsoap:code> > > I.e. the value of @code is a list of QNames, the first one being > the code and the other ones its subcodes. And of course we cshould > constrain the list to have length > 0. > > Roberto > > > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > >> I suggest we move wsoap:code/wsoap:value to an attribute: >> >> That is, instead of: >> >> <wsoap:code> >> <wsoap:value>xs:QName</wsoap:value> >> <wsoap:subcode> >> <wsoap:value>xs:QName</wsoap:value> >> <wsoap:subcode>...</wsoap:subcode> >> </wsoap:subcode>? >> </wsoap:code> >> >> we do: >> >> <wsoap:code value="xs:QName"> >> <wsoap:subcode value="xs:QName"> >> <wsoap:subcode>...</wsoap:subcode> >> </wsoap:subcode>? >> </wsoap:code> >> >> This makes the syntax more consistent with the rest of the >> SOAP binding which is rather attribute-heavy. >> >> Sanjiva. > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 04:47:27 UTC