- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 15:08:42 -0700
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I took an action item at last weeks concall to propose resolution text for Issue 302[1] It turns out I had already incorporated such text into the editor's copy of part 2[2] as part of the resolution to Issue 353[3] ( classified editorial ). The text can be found in green highlight at[4]. Also refer to clause 4 of[5]. If people are unhappy with the resolution, perhaps the following would be preferable: 1. Remove the green highlighted text from[4] 2. Amend clause 4 of[5] to read: Certain graphs may sometimes contain a given edge and at other times that edge will be missing. Such missing edges can either be omitted from the serialization or can be encoded as an element information item with an xsi:nil attribute information item whose value is "true". On the whole, I think I prefer the above, rather than what is in the editor's copy. The problem with the editor's copy is that there is no way to determine the label of an edge which does not terminate in a graph node. While this is OK for an outbound edge of an array, it is not OK for an outbound edge of a struct. The above resolution draws out the fact that the edges were not present in the graph at serialization time. If we mandated xsi:nil then there would be an edge label, so the above concern would go away, but I'm not sure anyone want's to go there right now. Comments, flames, discussion etc. to the usual address. Gudge [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x302 [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x353 [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#graphedges [5] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#complexenc
Received on Sunday, 8 September 2002 20:27:22 UTC