Re: Possibly defaulted (was RE: Minutes for Thurs 7th Feb 2002 Telcon)

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.


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)
>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