- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:30:44 -0800
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Cc: "Paul Cotton" <pcotton@microsoft.com>, "Andrew Layman" <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Jacek, 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. Henrik > 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. .. >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0231.html >[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x18
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 13:31:47 UTC