- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:21:31 +0100 (CET)
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Rich, your first suggestion is a good one, I think. This part of the text was copied from the current editors' copy of the spec. To the second, for example: offset "1 1 1" is not as good as position in the case of an array of size "2 * *" with four members, because the members can be on positions [1 1 1], [1 1 2], [1 1 3], [1 1 4] or [1 1 1], [1 1 2], [1 2 1], [1 2 2] or any other combinations. Even if there is only one asterisk, for example size="2 * 2", it's easy to deserialize the array when we know the exact number of the members and no explicit position interferes. To summarize - an asterisk in any position other than the first brings difficulties during deserialization unless all members specify their exact position, which is exactly what the text requires. 8-) Take care, Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) http://www.systinet.com/ On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Rich Salz wrote: > I like this. > > > Array types derived from enc:Array MUST be restrictions of the > > enc:Array type and can be used to represent, for example, arrays > > limited to integers or arrays of some user-defined enumeration. > > How about "limited to integers, or arrays of a fixed size" so that the > examples show two different aspects? > > > In case there is an asterisk on other than the first position, > > all the members in the array MUST specify their position. > > Perhaps add "(such as via the enc:offset or enc:position attributes)" > I say this because it's not immediately obvious that offset can be as > good as position for specifying position. (See? :) > > /r$ >
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 12:21:34 UTC