RE: proposed resolution for issue #18 - "top level" unclear


I have always understood "top-level" as meaning "top-level of the
serialization" and not "top-level of the SOAP envelope in the form of a
block". That is, whichever the top of the serialization is, this is the
level in the tree where one sticks multi-refs. That is, it seems to me
to be a question of clarifying what "top-level" means with respect to a
serialization and not simply to remove the term.


> As a resolution to issue #18 [2] the ETF proposes that the 
>Encoding allows inline (embedded) serialization of references. 
> Also, as part of this resolution, all mentions of "top level" 
>should be removed, which also means removing all mentions of 
>"independent elements". In some places just removing the 
>appropriate part of the text is sufficient, in some places 
>some rephrasing may be necessary, please see the attached file 
>for my proposal on the changes (red striked is to be removed, 
>green close-by is to be added).  This change will not disallow 
>"independent elements". We might also want to explicitly say 
>that the elements can be serialized just about anywhere 
>(according to all other rules, of course), that they SHOULD or 
>MUST be marked with root="false" and that they SHOULD be 
>serialized in-line.  If we decide for the MUST two lines 
>above, this would be the only backward incompatible change, 
>although I agree that to implement the SHOULDs there will have 
>to be some changes in current implementations.



Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 13:31:47 UTC