W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

RE: interchange issue: empty properties vs. absent properties

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 17:27:31 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC3C63025.8FFE3184-ON8525717D.00757712-8525717D.0075E6B4@ca.ibm.com>
Any place you see id-null indicates an error in Woden. That means Woden 
failed to resolve a reference.

The WG clarified that an empty list of soap fault subcodes was 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca

"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
05/25/2006 09:31 AM

"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

RE: interchange issue: empty properties vs. absent  properties

Yes, cmsoap:soapFaultSubcodes for instance.  But I do now feel that fixing 
Woden?s id-null issue will probably moot this point.

From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:37 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: interchange issue: empty properties vs. absent properties
If that is ALWAYS true - empty = absent - then that's fine, but I thought 
there were cases where empty != absent?
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Thu 25-May-06 3:22
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: interchange issue: empty properties vs. absent properties
The spec equates an empty property and an absent property.  I?m finding a 
few places in the interchange format where Woden generates an empty 
property, e.g. <elementDeclarations/>, while I simply omit this element.
Seems like the simplest solution would be to canonicalize such that empty 
properties (which may be all empty elements with no attributes) away ? 
i.e. delete them during canonicalization.  Does that sound reasonable?
 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com  ][  
http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes  ]
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 21:27:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:58 UTC