- From: Simon Fell <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 07:56:15 -0800
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Wasn't there a recent discussion on issues to do with defaulting
mustUnderstand & actor [i need to check the archives], is this
consistent with the results of that ?
on a related note, IMHO this makes the case for itemType weaker, I'm
still of the opinion that itemType is redundant, and results in
array's being a special case that force you to include type
information on the wire.
Cheers
Simon
www.pocketsoap.com
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:34:43 +0100 (CET), in soap you wrote:
> Simon, (and maybe Andrew 8-) )
> we agree that the words "(possibly defaulted)" in rule 2 in
>Encoding are offensive. 8-)
> The Encoding task force suggests that we resolve this editorial
>issue by removing these offending parenthesized words. The
>situation would become equal to that with the mustUnderstand
>attribute - effectively it has the default value of "false", even
>though this default value would not show in the infoset that the
>SOAP Node receives; the node must act as if the value was there
>as "false".
> Same here, if we're in an array and there is no itemType
>attribute present, the Encoding processor must act as if it were
>present with the value {xml-schema-namespace}anyType.
> Is this satisfactory?
>
> Jacek Kopecky
>
> Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
> http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
>On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Andrew Layman wrote:
>
> > Re
> >
> > 6) Encoding use of default attributes, see item 5 in [3]
> > Agreed that text in rule 2 is confusing.
> > NEW ACTION: MJH to remove "(possibly defaulted)" from rule 2. NEW
> > ACTION: JK to contact originator with proposed resolution.
> >
> > I might be that originator. :-)
> >
> >
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 10:57:19 UTC