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

 Noah,
 the text I had in mind was meant as adding to the spec a
sentence like this: "When no such type information is available,
the referenced resource is considered to be 'untyped'" [1]
 IMO this is unnecessary and contrary to the rules in section
4.1. What would have the same effect would be relaxing
(rewriting) the said rules.
 The distinction, therefore, is one of explicitly saying that
some values are untyped vs. not requiring every value to be
typed. More vs. less spec text.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0256.html



On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

 > Jacek Kopecky writes:
 > 
 > >> Noah, I agree with your split of 1.  You once proposed
 > >> a text on 1a by adding that external references,
 > >> otherwise untyped, have no type. I suggested that
 > >> instead of this we just remove the rule which says
 > >> every value has a type. Which would you prefer, if the
 > >> WG decides to go 1a?  Best regards,
 > >> 
 > >> Jacek Kopecky
 > >> 
 > 
 > I'm sorry but I'm not remembering the rewrite you had in mind, and I'm not 
 > quite getting the distinction you make above.  I'm certainly against 1b 
 > (from my note below).   I don't see much distinction between saying that 
 > values MAY be untyped vs. that values MAY have no type.  Thank you.
 > 
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
 > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
 > One Rogers Street
 > Cambridge, MA 02142
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
 > Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
 > 01/03/2002 01:43 PM
 > 
 >  
 >         To:     Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus@Lotus
 >         cc:     xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
 >         Subject:        Re: issue 168 proposal: xsi:type of external references in Encoding
 > 
 > 
 > Noah,
 > I agree with your split of 1.
 > You once proposed a text on 1a by adding that external
 > references, otherwise untyped, have no type. I suggested that
 > instead of this we just remove the rule which says every value
 > has a type. Which would you prefer, if the WG decides to go 1a?
 > Best regards,
 > 
 > Jacek Kopecky
 > 
 > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > http://www.systinet.com/
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
 > 
 > >
 > > Jacek Kopecky writes:
 > >
 > > >> 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-)
 > >
 > > The wording of 1 is potentially ambiguous.  It might be taken to mean 
 > that
 > > we want a design where:
 > >
 > > 1a) It's OK to have values that are untyped
 > > - or -
 > > 1B) All values must be typed, but some of those types need not be XSD 
 > types
 > > (e.g. some might be MIME types or some such)
 > >
 > > My own leanings would be either toward 1a (base typing on XSD, but allow
 > > untyped nodes), with a second choice of 3 (external hrefs are not
 > > considered part of the encoded graph at all.)
 > >
 > >
 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
 > > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
 > > One Rogers Street
 > > Cambridge, MA 02142
 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > 
 > 
 >

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 06:44:59 UTC