- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 09:56:22 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- cc: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Henrik,
the difference is that Gudge adds the unnecessary notion of
graph root into the data model and dismisses the root attribute
for the wrong reasons while not taking into account the SOAP 1.1
rules that might survive and cause problems.
In terms of text changes the difference is small, in terms of
the rationale it's bigger.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>
> I understood Gudge's proposal to say that we don't need the root
> attribute so the differences seem to be small. In general, however, I
> can't see how we can avoid cross-referencing without changing the
> definition of "id" to only have a scope of a single serialization tree
> (not that I think that is a good idea).
>
> Henrik
>
> > 1) We will not add the notion of a root anywhere.
> > 2) We will state in the serialization rules that "unless a node
> >has been serialized before and could therefore be linked to, it
> >MUST be serialized in its edge EII".
> >
> > This will force inline serialization and suppress the need for
> >root attribute.
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 03:56:30 UTC