Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs

>  I think arrayType is not equivalent to xsi:type as it does
> not identify the schema type of the array, so I think
> xsi:type and arrayType can easily coexist.

Really !! What for ??

> Note that this rule forbids href and xsi:nil from
> occurring together as well.

I don't think so. "href or xsi:nil" means 0 1, 1 0, 1 1 are valid. The third
combination, both href and xsi:nil, is allowed.

Asir

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Asir S Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs


Asir,
 I think arrayType is not equivalent to xsi:type as it does not
identify the schema type of the array, so I think xsi:type and
arrayType can easily coexist.
 Thanks for pointing out xsi:nil which is very similar to href in
this issue.
 So my current version of the constraints would be:

 "If an href or xsi:nil attribute is present, only these listed
attributes may be present as well: enc:position, actor,
mustUnderstand, encodingStyle. On data encoded using SOAP
Encoding, the encodingStyle attribute, when present, must have
the value of 'http://www.w3.org/2001/09/soap-encoding'."

 Note that this rule forbids href and xsi:nil from occurring
together as well.
 I've added encodingStyle because if a serialization root, for
example a header, is a reference, we need to be able to say that
this element is in fact serialized according to our Encoding
rules. If the encodingStyle attribute has a value different from
the above, the href attribute and xsi:nil are to be interpreted
according to the rules of the other encoding, so it's not our
business and therefore the restriction above is not a limitation.
 I expect every other global attribute defined by the core should
be added to the list - if we define any other global attributes.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Asir S Vedamuthu wrote:

 > > 3) For illustration of the problem .. There are two
 > > possible solutions:
 >
 > This is a general problem and is not specific to references. Here is a
third
 > possible solution that addresses the general problem - specify
co-occurrence
 > constraints
 >
 > Co-occurrence constraints,
 >
 > (a) href | xsi:nil | xsi:type | SOAP-ENC:arrayType - only one of these
 > attributes must be present
 > (b) id must not be present if href or xsi:nil is present
 > (c) SOAP-ENC:offset must not be present if href, xsi:nil or xsi:type is
 > present
 >
 > Regards, Asir
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>
 > To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
 > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 8:21 AM
 > Subject: ETF: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs
 >
 >
 > Hi all. 8-)
 >  Here is the summary of the discussion on soapbuilders [1] about
 > inlining multirefs, which could solve the issue #18 (and #121).
 >  There was a general agreement that allowing inlining the
 > referenced data would be good.
 >  There were various points that people were pointing out:
 >  1) maybe we should also disallow forward references
 >  2) referencing data that can be stripped out from the message
 >  3) attribute clashes on references
 >
 >  Now let me detail the points.
 >  1) Some people felt forward references might be bad, other felt
 > my original proposal disallowed forward references. I propose to
 > keep forward references because they allow references from
 > headers to body, which might be necessary for things like
 > XMLDSIG, although any other referencing mechanism (most probably
 > XML IDREF) could be used instead of SOAP Encoding referencing.
 >
 >  2) References from body to headers and references among headers
 > may lead to situations where the referenced data is removed from
 > the message. There are a few possible solutions to this (I'm not
 > saying the list is necessarily complete):
 >  a) Rely on application designers to do it right. This is not
 > recommendable.
 >  b) disallow references between "serialization trees", the roots
 > of "serialization trees" being each header block and the Body (or
 > for the sake of symmetry each body block, but this is not
 > necessary to solve problem 2). If we go this way we must allow
 > for e.g. the dig-sig header to point to anything using different
 > means from SOAP Encoding hrefs.
 >  c) "References in which the referenced data may disappear before
 > all the references (i.e. references between headers or a header
 > and the body), MUST be serialized as "independent" elements in
 > the <soap-env:Header/> element and they must contain an attribute
 > 'actor' with the value '.../none'. All other referenced data
 > SHOULD be serialied in-line." Quite complex but solving the
 > problem.
 >  Personally, I prefer b) over c) over a).
 >
 >  3) For illustration of the problem:
 > <a foo="bar" id="1">blah</a>
 > <b foo="baz" href="#1"/>
 > The problem is what is the value of b? There are two possible
 > solutions:
 >  a) merge attributes - prefer those from the accessor over those
 > from the referenced element,
 >  b) ignore attributes on the accessor except for a limited list
 > of exceptions: href, enc:position. (Might want to add actor and
 > mustUnderstand, but see my reasons against it in [2]).
 >  I recommend b), because of reasons in [3].
 >
 >  If any of my recommendations needs more discussion, let me know
 > which and I'll write a separate email so that a formal issue can
 > be formed, for it's better when an the issue list entry links to
 > a message with a single issue. 8-)
 >
 >  Best regards,
 >
 >                             Jacek Kopecky
 >
 >                             Idoox
 >                             http://www.idoox.com/
 >
 >
 > [1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/5557
 > [2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/5591
 > [3] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/5580
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >

Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 13:26:46 UTC