- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:57:29 +0100
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: Kevin Johnsrude <kevinj@roguewave.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Marc,
> the way I was reading that text was that "if, when accessing the
> compound type, the edges are accessed by their label only, the
> element qname is the label. If they are accessed by position, the
> label is ignored and so is the element qname then." Basically,
> "distinguishing between accessors" I understand as "what I use to
> get one of them", not "how are they different".
>
Hmmm, I think we may have stumbled on an issue here - do you agree ?
Regards,
Marc.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:
>
> > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> > > Marc, Kevin,
> > > I believe that since in array the names are irrelevant, we must
> > > not assume that they are the same. The name may be used for type
> > > matching (if using some schema validation as suggested in
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#encschema ) or it may be
> > > generated or (usually) it can be the same (like 'item' or
> > > something) but the latter is just one of the options.
> > >
> > Hmmm, thats not my reading of it. The rules in [1] are:
> > > "1. For a graph edge which is distinguished by label ("struct" or
> > "generic"), the namespace name and local name properties of the element
> > information item together determine the value of the edge label.
> > 2. For a graph edge which is distinguished by position ("array" or
> > "generic"):
> > * The ordinal position of the graph edge corresponds to the
> > position of the element information item relative to its siblings
> > * If outbound edges are distinguished only by position ("array")
> > then the local name and namespace name properties of the element
> > information item are not significant."
> > > If the names of the child elements are not the same then the outbound
> > edges are NOT distinguished only by position (see 2, bullet 2 above) and
> > hence you have a generic rather than an array.
> > > I agree that the actual names of the array elements are not significant
> > (although, as Jacek notes, they can be used for type matching) but they
> > should all be the same.
> > > Marc.
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#complexenc
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:
> > > > > > > Kevin Johnsrude wrote:
> > > > > In SOAP 1.2, 3.1.2 "Encoding compound values" [1], is there any way to
> > > > > distinguish between a "struct" and an "array" that has neither an "itemType"
> > > > > nor an "arraySize" attribute? Note that this appears to be permitted per
> > > > > item 3.
> > > > > > IIRC, an array's child elements all have the same name. A struct's child
> > > > elements all have different names. A generics child elements can be a
> > > > mixture of the two.
> > > > > So, for a struct or array with only one child element then its difficult
> > > > to tell the difference without the attributes.
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > Marc.
> > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#complexenc
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 09:58:06 UTC