- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:48:47 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
- cc: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Gudge, as said in [1], the type name assignment is xsi:type or itemType or unspecified. The element QNames that encoding schema provides were meant to serve as possible replacement for xsi:type, a shortcut, really. So if the rules are understood that "if there is no xsi:type and there is itemType above, the type is that of itemType, never other" we'll have an issue. Possible solutions: a) remove the elements (they are only a shortcut anyway) in favor or xsi:type, or b) phrase the relevant parts so that the elements in encoding namespace are really that shortcut equivalent to specifying the appropriate xsi:type. What do you think? Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) http://www.systinet.com/ On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote: > I've been thinking about this a bit more. In the array case, we're already > covered by[1], assuming people actually use itemType attributes. If they > don't use itemType then we're back to needing specific element QNames in > order for type assignment to work. > > So what will people do in the real world? Use itemType? Use specific element > QNames? Both? Neither? > > I'm not sure that validation against the encoding schema is all that useful, > even if I change it to remove the current ref problem. It will only provide > type info nodes in arrays or generics accessed by position. And it will only > do it for arrays if people haven't already used itemType. So that really > just leaves generics. Is it worth the effort to get the encoding schema > right and write rules for type assignment when the utility is so limited? > > Gudge > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.xml#enctypename > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com> > To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com> > Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>; "Yves Lafon" > <ylafon@w3.org> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:49 AM > Subject: Re: SOAP Encoding Schema broken > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com> > > To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@hotmail.com> > > Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>; "Yves Lafon" > > <ylafon@w3.org> > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:18 AM > > Subject: Re: SOAP Encoding Schema broken > > > > > > > Gudge, > > > these elements are only used where the edge label doesn't > > > matter, > > > > Oh, I agree entirely. > > > > > and they are used so that xsi:type becomes unnecessary. > > > > xsi:type is *never* necessary, although it is sometimes useful. > > > > > There are two scenarios - the edge is a reference or is not a > > > reference. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > In case the edge is a reference its element information item > > > carries no relevant type information. > > > > Right, it's an edge and only an edge. > > > > > In case the edge is not a > > > reference there is no problem with the current schema. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > Since the type information has no meaning on the reference, I > > > prefer your middle solution, element named "reference" which has > > > an attribute "ref" and that's all. > > > > OK, presumably we'd need to frame this so that such elements are only used > > in arrays and generics accessed by position. > > > > Gudge > > > > >
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 09:48:50 UTC