Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long)

 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