- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:42:34 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: rsalz@zolera.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
That was indeed the idea, but just an idea. If everyone who has been involved in using and implementing the encodings thinks it's a good one, fine. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't push it. It just seems to me to make the models for explicit and implicit positions more consistent. Is it not in general allowed to mix the two? If so, then how would you deal with: <A Position='3'> ... </A> <A Position='4'> ... </A> <A Position='2'> ... </A> <A> ... </A> <! -- dup of position 3 --> <A> ... </A> <! -- dup of position 4 --> Are the last two duplicates? I think that by requiring everything to be ordered, you avoid having to deal with rules for strange situations such as this. You still have to deal with: <A Position='2'> ... </A> <A> ... </A> <A> ... </A> <A Position='3'> ... </A> <! -- dup of position 3 --> Which I presume to be illegal, right? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 10/31/01 10:47 AM To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com> cc: <rsalz@zolera.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Subject: Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) Noah, would you also like all the positions to be in order? I don't think adding these constraints would be a bad idea as I feel there may be cases where knowing the elements are in order could help. It would be consistent, too, but I don't think the text without these constraints is inconsistent. Anyway, I think I can support adding these two rules as phrased below (and with possible editorial changes of course): "The presence of the enc:offset attribute indicates the partially transmitted array contains no member on position below the offset value." and "The members in a partially transmitted array must appear in order, i.e. the rightmost index is changing most rapidly." Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) http://www.systinet.com/ On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: > If both offset and positions are specified, would it be better or worse to > require that no position preceeds the offset? That would allow you to > have implementations where there is, in general, a current offset starting > at 0 in all dimensions. If explicit offset is provided, then positions > start from there. No position may preceed current offset (in other words, > leverage the rule that all elements are in order.) > > Not a big deal...just a suggestion in case you all like it. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 15:52:57 UTC