RE: Issue 177: missing elements same as nils?

> I think the proposal as you stated it below effectively states 
>that an omitted member is a NULL, am I right?

In our data model, yes, as we don't deal with default values.

> Why I think so: in our data model there are concrete values and 
>NULLs. A concrete value is serialized as the value per other 
>rules. A NULL then may be serialized with xsi:nil or as omission. 
>There is nothing else that can be serialized with xsi:nil or as 
>omission - therefore an omission is a NULL.
> Btw, if it is indeed so, I like this proposal very much because 
>NULLs can be taken for default values by the application - out of 
>scope of SOAP Encoding.



Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 15:04:06 UTC