- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:10:49 +0200 (CEST)
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Ray Whitmer wrote:
> The real answer would have been a generic compound type, that
> could have legitimately preserved and represented both.
IMHO the real answer would have been a generic XML structure
with every parameter allowed to specify its encodingStyle.
This is pretty much the same as a generic compound type in the
terms of flexibility (with the added possibility of attributes
like thisIsTheReturnValue="true") but we would gain the
independence from SOAP Encoding/Data Model. I don't think generic
compound type adds any value over generic XML.
I did in fact suggest this almost a year ago but it was rejected
in the RPCTF because a struct is easier to handle a more logical
for an RPC, if I recall correctly.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Friday, 17 May 2002 09:10:59 UTC