- From: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:51:15 +0100
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
inline Gudge ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com> To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com> Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Proposal for dealing with root > Gudge, generally I like it, with just one remark inline. > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote: > <SNIP/> > > 'A graph node that has no inbound edges is a root of the graph.' > > What we needed is not a graph root but a serialization root. You > define the former, I don't know at the moment how one could > easily define the latter. Consider the following case: > <env:Body> > <m:foo encodingStyle="{soap-encoding}" id="id1"> > <m:value>42</m:value> > <m:next ref="id1"/> > </m:foo> > </env:Body> > It's a circular graph and the serialization root is not a graph > root (this graph has no root). > > I'd propose that if we don't come up with a definition of a > seriailzation root (as I cannot at the moment), we can just skip > this as I don't feel a strong need for this definition anyway. I think you just did define serialization root. It's m:foo in your example above, that is, it is always the outermost element of the serialization ( given no independent elements ) > > Below, I think you also mean to talk about serialization roots as > opposed to graph roots. Well, it's actually hard to seperate the two, but the graph has two roots ( and the serialization has two roots too ) Gudge <SNIP/>
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 09:51:18 UTC