- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:39:09 +0100 (CET)
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- cc: <rsalz@zolera.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Noah, my proposal forbids using position attribute on only some of the members so both of your examples are invalid. 8-) Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) http://www.systinet.com/ On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: > 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 17:39:14 UTC