- From: Asir S Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:28:39 -0500
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> I propose we all just say "we suggest that > encodingStyle attribute be made single-value > because the other way is unnecessarily complex." 8-) I agree Asir ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com> To: "Asir S Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com> Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Asir, we are not declaring that one encodingStyle is a valid restriction of another, we're simply assuming it, it's a prerequisite for the two values to be able to coexist in one encodingStyle attribute. 8-) Sure the information may seem redundant and we might want to declare the encodingStyle restrictions in a different place and put into encodingStyle only the most specific, but I think this would be overkill. Anyway, since we seem to be wandering into something deep here, I propose we all just say "we suggest that encodingStyle attribute be made single-value because the other way is unnecessarily complex." 8-) Take care, Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) http://www.systinet.com/ On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Asir S Vedamuthu wrote: > Jacek, > > This suggests that we are jamming two features into 1 - specifying in-scope > encodingStyle and declaring one encodingStyle is a valid restriction of > another encodingStyle. The latter needs to be declared only once. However, > per status quo, if the restricted encodingStyle is specified multiple times > at various element info items, then we are forced to specify that the > restricted encodingStyle is a valid restriction of another encodingStyle > multiple times. > > Regards, Asir > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com> > To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com> > Cc: "Asir S Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:43 PM > Subject: Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific > encodingStyles,HOW? > > > Chris, > encodingStyle has exactly the scoping you want. 8-) > Multiple encodings here is not meant as multiple _different_ > encodings, it's more like "the data is encoded using these rules, > but actually using these - more specific - rules, too". > Best regards, > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Christopher Ferris wrote: > > > +1 to KISS. Has anyone a demonstrable need for support > > for multiple encodings? Couldn't the encodingStyle attribute > > be context sensitive (eg. it applies to the element on > > which it is declared and all of its decendants until > > a subsequent encodingStyle declaration is made)? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > Asir S Vedamuthu wrote: > > > > > Jacek, > > > > > > Thank you for looking into this. > > > > > > > > >>If it is useful for a receiver to know that this data was > > >>serialized according to the subset (2), while other receivers > > >>might just fall back to the general set (1) not knowing/caring > > >>about the restriction, the multiplicity of encodingStyle might be > > >>justified. > > >> > > > > > > As you said, this needs to be clarified with lots of text and examples. > > > Also, per your description, then we need additional constraints, > > > > > > - any most specific encodingStyle in the whitespace delimited list must > be a > > > valid restriction of the next encodingStyle in this list. BTW, I do not > know > > > what restriction means in this context. > > > > > > - all of the encodingStyles in the whitespace delimited list must use > the > > > same data model (there is some contention if encodingStyle implicitly > > > specifies a data model) > > > > > > > > >>If it is useful for a receiver to know that this data > > >>was serialized according to the subset (2) > > >> > > > > > > Are there any benefits in knowing that this data was serialized > according to > > > the subset? > > > > > > Lets say a receiver implements only a subset of SOAP Encoding and likes > to > > > know if parts of the message were serialized using a subset. Per issue > 48 > > > resolution [1], I do not believe that we encourage subsetting SOAP > Encoding. > > > It is in take it or leave it mode - "but if they claim conformance with > the > > > SOAP encoding they must pass the SOAP encoding conformance tests". Then > this > > > hypothetical receiver does not conform to SOAP Encoding. > > > > > > > > > Like Rich and you, I vote for simple things and will be happy to see > this go > > > .. > > > > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0242.html > > > > > > > > > Regards, 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 10:30 AM > > > Subject: Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific > > > encodingStyles,HOW? > > > > > > > > > Asir, > > > I personally never saw the need for the multiple encodingStyle > > > values. The example in the spec hints at some kind of possible > > > "restriction hierarchy" where for example we have a set of rules > > > (encStyle 1) and a subset thereof (encStyle 2). > > > If it is useful for a receiver to know that this data was > > > serialized according to the subset (2), while other receivers > > > might just fall back to the general set (1) not knowing/caring > > > about the restriction, the multiplicity of encodingStyle might be > > > justified. > > > But I think we do need to clarify the use of multiple values in > > > encodingStyle if we actually want to keep it. > > > You would hear from me no objection to removing encodingStyle > > > multiplicity, though. The soapbuilder in me would be glad for > > > this simplification of SOAP. 8-) > > > I don't think the scoping of encStyle solves the same problem as > > > the "more specific" encoding applies in the whole scope of the > > > attribute. > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Jacek Kopecky > > > > > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > > > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Asir S Vedamuthu wrote: > > > > > > > Issue > > > > > > > > SOAP uses encodingStyle attribute to indicate the encoding rules > used for > > > > serializing parts of a SOAP message. encodingStyle attribute is a > > > whitespace > > > > delimited list. Each item in the list is type anyURI, XML Schema > built-in > > > > type. And, specification says that sets of rules should be listed in > the > > > > order most specific to least specific. > > > > > > > > First, thus far I have not seen any implementations that support > this, > > > "sets > > > > of rules .. most specific to least specific". Have you seen any? > > > > > > > > Second, what does it mean when the spec says "most specific to least > > > > specific"? How will a machine figure out when to apply what? > > > > > > > > Third, per Jacek's e-mail [2], encodingStyle attribute implicitly > > > specifies > > > > a data model - say object-graph data model, RDF, UML, etc. What does > it > > > mean > > > > to say that the data model appears as "most specific to least > specific"? > > > mm > > > > .. it is a changing data model. isn't it? > > > > > > > > Fourth, encodingStyle has a scope. Its scope is its owner element > and > > > that > > > > element's descendents. The scope of encodingStyle is similar to the > scope > > > of > > > > default namespace declarations. Using this feature, it is possible > to > > > > specify different specific encodingStyle at various element > information > > > > items in the SOAP message. If so, is there a need for specifying > "most > > > > specific to least specific" at one element information item when the > same > > > > thing can be achieved by specifying just one encodingStyle at > various > > > > element information items? > > > > > > > > I request the ETF to investigate the following, > > > > > > > > (a) Is there a need for "most specific to least specific" encoding > rules > > > and > > > > changing data models? > > > > (b) Does the scope of the encodingStyle attribute solve the same > problem? > > > > (c) For interoperability reasons, how can we better articulate this > > > feature > > > > using more prose, details and examples? > > > > (d) How does the "most specific to least specific" encoding rules > measure > > > > against our requirements and charter "a mechanism for serializing > data > > > > representing non-syntactic data models in a manner that maximizes > the > > > > interoperability of independently developed Web applications" [3] > > > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapencattr > > > > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0192.html > > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlp-reqs-20010319/#N400 > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Asir S Vedamuthu > > > > > > > > webMethods, Inc. > > > > 703-460-2513 or asirv@webmethods.com > > > > http://www.webmethods.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 13:28:53 UTC