Re: updated proposal on issue #144 - array metadata in SOAP Encoding

 certainly the intention was to keep the status quo -
insignificant element names (except that they can carry type
 To your second concern, we may try to specify that the type of
each member must be allowed in that place by the schema language
used for describing this representation of the data. I'm not sure
I'm able to craft the sentence concisely and clearly enough,
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 wrote:

 > Jacek Kopecky writes:
 > >> There is no specific constraint on the
 > >> names of the member elements.
 > I think you need to clarify whether they will have to be the same.  If
 > not, perhaps issued give some guidance as to whether there is any semantic
 > difference between elements with different names.  For example, the SOAP
 > 1.1 specification says:
 > "Within an array value, element names are not significant for
 > distinguishing accessors"
 > >> Each member's type MUST be a subtype
 > I agree with the spirit, but we have to walk a careful line regarding our
 > dependency on the W3C XML Schema specification.  First of all, I think
 > that specification defines "extension" and "refinement", but tends not to
 > use the term subtype.  Do we intend to allow extensions?  If I'm using a
 > different schema language or no schema language at all, what does the
 > above rule mean?
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
 > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
 > One Rogers Street
 > Cambridge, MA 02142
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 15:28:08 UTC