W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Repost issue: missing accessors same as NILs?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:04:35 +0100 (CET)
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201182301340.32025-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 what I mean by "default value" is, of course, an 
"application-specified default value". Would this clarification 
satisfy your concerns, or is it something else?
 I don't like the words "unspecified value" because IMHO that is 
just a special case of the above. But I can imagine the situation 
can be viewed the opposite - the former being a special case of 
the latter, is that right? 8-)
 I'm really concerned about potentially misleading formulations 
so thanks for your comments.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Rich Salz wrote:

 > I don't think I wrote clearly enough.
 > I am concerned that by saying "default value" rather than "unspecified 
 > values", that careless programmers will assume an "obvious" default, 
 > such as zero for all numbers, etc., and that SOAP implementors will be
 > forced to implement this because careless programmers on popular 
 > platforms end up "forcing" everyone else to play along.
 > I have been doing distributed systems for awhile -- I maintained an idl 
 > compiler at BBN over a decade ago -- and I was still mislead by your text.
 > 	/r$
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 17:04:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:45 UTC