- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:32:07 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
The definitive tone of Don's message made me go back and re-read the
proposal. I still think I'm right. If only "literal" is supported, than
the message schema must exactly describe the message: no multiref strings,
etc., unless explicit encoded into the schema. Is that correct?
If I have an operation
int foo(const char* a, const char* b)
then using SOAP encoding, the body would look like
<SOAP:Body>
<foo xmlns="....">
<a href="#b"/>
<b>cloned string</b>
</foo>
But the schema would look like foo as a complex element with sub-elements
a and b as xsd:string.
Doesn't this become impossible with "encoded" is dropped? Even if "this"
just means the paragraph before this one?
/r$
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2003 21:32:08 UTC