Re: issue 168 proposal: xsi:type of external references in Encoding

 IMO this shows that in SOAP Encoding we don't really want either
 1) the strong requirement that every value is XSD typed, or
 2) to use XSD simple types, or
 3) to allow external references.
 Pick one. I favor 3 over 1 over 2. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

 > Jacek Kopecky writes:
 > >> The lexical representation is not important
 > >> in our case since the value is not in an
 > >> XML file. What's important is the value
 > >> space - arrays of bytes.
 > The reason I'm not comfortable with this is that schema types are about
 > lexical and value spaces.  You can't get one without the other.  The
 > schema WG seriously considered a design that would have used some notion
 > of abstract types to capture commonality of value spaces, while allowing
 > you to then derive subtypes to control the lexical representations.  We
 > never found a way to get it right, and the current version of schemas does
 > not support such a notion.   There are two built in binary types, one for
 > hex and one for base 64, and each has a specific lexical representation.
 > You can restrict those representations in a subtype, but you cannot
 > otherwise change or replace them.
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
 > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
 > One Rogers Street
 > Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 11:06:18 UTC