Re: Two issues to be opened relating to my rewrite for Issue 101 (and one more already resolved)

+1 for the resolution on your first issue (excerpt appended below)

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> * For envelope attributes, we should use the proper XML Schemas simple type
> terminology, carefully indicate when we are referring to lexical vs. value
> space, and if a subtype is used (e.g. a boolean that only accepts lexical
> form "1"), make clear that we are doing so.
>
> We do not currently have an issue open on this.  I propose that we open
> such an issue and resolve it along the following lines:  we should
> indicate, probably in chapter 4, that "attributes in the SOAP envelope
> described by "Part 1: Framework" are are of types from XML Schema:
> Datatypes (e.g. mustUnderstand is a boolean).  Unless otherwise stated, all
> lexical forms are supported for each such attribute, and lexical forms
> representing the same value in the XML Schema value space are considered
> equivalent for purposes of SOAP processing.  Thus, the boolean lexical
> forms "1" and "true" [ref to boolean datatype in the schema spec] are
> interchangeable.  For brevity, text in this specification refers only to
> one lexical form for each value (e.g. "if the value of mustUnderstand is
> "true").  Unless otherwise stated, such references implicitly cover all
> forms corresponding to the same value in the value space.  However, when a
> header block is relayed by an intermediary [see section 2.6], the lexical
> form of any attributes within that block MUST be preserved.  "

Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 07:13:06 UTC