- 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 significant. 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 To "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org> cc Subject 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 tony.rogers@ca.com 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