RE: Encoding examples (was: Issue 282)

Jean-Jacques:
I fear that "a simple example" may not be enough. To get a hang of the whole encoding scheme business, many more examples may  be needed, and the primer could get quite lopsided in its emphasis. (Such a charge has already been made about it.) There are so many nuances in the data encoding that one or two examples may not be sufficient to capture them. I take encouragement in the fact that both the SOAP data model and SOAP encodings are optional and targeted at *implementors* of SOAP, not at the sort of reader (architects, managers, newcomers) etc. at whom the Primer is directed. SOAP implementers probably know what to do in their particular programming environments. How to help others is a good thing, but, as I said, I wonder if a *brief* excursion into this area will really satisfy the serious implementor, while leaving others just as baffled.

Might perhaps a (non-normative) annex to part 2, with *many* examples, and *all possible nuances* explained in a manner suitable for the implementor, be a better solution? After all, the documentation should be closer to the (real) users of the specification.

Comments?

Nilo


-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 8:41 AM
To: Nilo Mitra; XMLP Public
Subject: Encoding examples (was: Issue 282)


Nilo,

In closing issue 282, I have noticed that the requester has asked 
for examples in Section 3, Part 2 (Encoding).

   "A simple example showing a model graph and one or
   two possible encodings is urgently needed because it
   will make reading and understanding this section a
   lot easier for a lot of people."

It would probably be better if these examples were in the primer 
instead.

What do you think?

Jean-Jacques.