RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding

Thanks! 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:40 AM
To: Andrew Layman
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding 

 Andrew,
 your algorithm said "if there is no prior position, use the
offset" but IMO it does in no way forbid for example

  <array offset="[5]">
    <member position="[2]">...</member>
  </array>

 But generally, we seem to agree. I'll produce a full version of
the text soom, adding your algorithm to it.

 And I seem to have forgotten to add the link to [1] yet again...
Here it is:

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0362.html

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Andrew Layman wrote:

 > Right.  Thanks. I thought that mine is cheap to implement, fully
 > expressive and is more efficient than forbidding combination of
 > position-bearing and non-position-bearing elements.  It is a pretty
 > simple algorithm.
 >
 > I think that my version implicitly forbids elements prior to Offset,
but
 > this could be made explicit if that is clearer.  I agree with the
desire
 > to forbid out-of-sequence elements; these are unnecessary and almost
 > certainly represent errors.
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
 > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:54 PM
 > To: Andrew Layman
 > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
 > Subject: RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding
 >
 >  Andrew,
 >  I have gone a step further in my proposal (see the last
 > iteration [1]), I have forbidden combining members with and
 > without explicit position.
 >  I agree though that your set of rules would work as well. It has
 > the benefit of being able to explicitly specify the position only
 > on the first member in a contiguous segment of transmitted
 > members.
 >  My last iteration has the benefit of stating that there is
 > nothing before the offset, but I think this could easily be added
 > to your version as well. 8-)
 >  I tend to leave my restriction and move to your set of rules but
 > this may be making the rules a little more complex than
 > necessary.
 >  Best regards,
 >
 >                    Jacek Kopecky
 >
 >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 >
 >
 >
 > On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Andrew Layman wrote:
 >
 >  > Please see also the following message to SOAPBuilders:
 >  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/5126
 >  >
 >

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2001 15:29:12 UTC