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

Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:57:35 -0000
Message-ID: <002c01c1d0e5$29ae9500$707ba8c0@greyarea>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; "Martin Gudgin"
<marting@develop.com>; "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>;
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3

> Stuart,
>  as Herve put it, the serialization does not necessarily contain
> the names structA and structB. The misunderstanding might be
> caused by the fact that we don't yet know for sure what we start
> with - either a root node or a root edge (starting nowhere).
>  Root node: the name of the appropriate element information item
> is not ours (Encoding's) to decide.

I think we start here. Algthough that may cause problems in the RPC case as
we don't know the name of the top level element. Off the top of my head I
would suggest that we add some prose to Section 4 stating that the name of
the top level element in the RPC case is the name of the method. In non-RPC
cases, people can use whatever method names they like.

>  Root edge: the name of the appropriate element is set by the
> label of this edge, the edge MUST be labeled.

I don't think this makes much sense, having an *inbound* edge with no origin
just seems weird to me.

>  Either way, we probably should say it explicitly.


Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 09:32:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:48 UTC