Re: Proposed resolution on using schemas to default itemType and nodeClass (subissue of 231)

I hate talking to myself, but an action was given for a proposal.  As I 
said before (and I quote below), I don't have a fix.

As I responded in this message, I guess I just have to accept the 
wording and hope others will accept that it is not contradictory.

Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com


>noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com?Subject=Re:%20Proposed%20resolution%20on%20using%20schemas%20to%20default%20itemType%20and%20%20nodeClass%20%28subissue%20%20of%20231%29&In-Reply-To=%3C3D92F095.5010708@netscape.com%3E&References=%3C3D92F095.5010708@netscape.com%3E> wrote:
>
>>This note is in fulfillment of an action that I took on todays WG call.
>>  >
>Thanks.
>
>[...]
>
>>Does this seem like an acceptable approach?  I think it is appropriately
>>symmetric with the way we've been applying schema to other aspects of the
>>encoding, and it provides a standard interpretation for attribute defaults
>>in situations where schema validation is desired.  Thanks.
>>  >
>I accept this proposal.  It does have the desired overall effect of 
>unifying the self-describing approaches with the schema-describing 
>approaches, especially in this newly-proposed device for array detection.
>
>At first I had a bit of trouble understanding how one part of the 
>specification says "The values associated with element and attribute 
>information items defined in this specification MUST be carried 
>explicitly in the transmitted SOAP message except where stated 
>otherwise" and the other section says "the values of such defaulted 
>attributes affect the deserialized graph in the same manner as if the 
>attributes had been explicitly supplied in the message".  Using the 
>schema information not only associates type information, but it also 
>enhances the class (array/struct/simple/size) information of nodes in 
>the graph, in apparent violation of the spirit, if not the rules of the 
>normative section.  You get a significantly different graph if you use 
>the schema, which from the beginning has been a valid usage mode for the 
>SOAP encoding -- the non-self-describing encoding that relies on schema 
>to fill in all the type and class details since clients and servers all 
>look at the same WSDL file containing the relevant schema definitions.
>
>For some this might appear to be a simple contradiction within the spec 
>with a number of arguments possible for justifying or disregarding the 
>non-normative section.  If there were a simple statement that could be 
>added in the non-normative section justifying it against the normative 
>statement, it would be nice, but I failed to produce one.
>
[...]

Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 16:10:59 UTC