- 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