- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:51:34 +0600
- To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hi Rich, > 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? Yes. > 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? Yes - the argument was that if if graph structures are to be serialized then it must be done so by picking a serialization in the schema. IMHO that's lousy and stinks, but that's the decision. It actually originated in WS-I when it picked doc/lit (and rpc/lit? - not sure) as the supported approaches. Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 11:54:44 UTC