Minutes of Encoding Task Force, 17 January 2002.


  1. Updated list of action items:
  2. Discussion on Gudge's email
    Marc: maybe we can use a pseudocode in our Encoding examples
    Jack: WSDL uses XML Schema
    David: why only one style of examples?
    [David had to leave early, only Marc and Jack present now]
    Marc: two options: pseudo-C, or pseudo-C + schema
    Jack: if we tackle Schema description of our data, we should formally specify
          the mapping from our data model to Schema descriptions and back.
    Consensus was that we only have the pseudocode, that we add XSI:type attributes
    in the examples, that we leave one simple example with an associated schema to
    demonstrate that XSI:type is not mandatory
  3. XML Schema enumerations and lists:
    Jack: we talk about XML Schema simple-type enumerations, we don't talk about
          simple-type lists. Feels inconsistent. (Lists are handled by arrays in
    Marc: many programming languages have enums, so we specify them.
    OK, no issue here, move along.
  4. Issue 168: untyped data?
    Jack: Noah had some valid points in yesterday's WG telcon that could lead us to
          removing the requirement that every value be typed.
    Consensus was that we propose to close 168 by keeping status quo, and we ask
    Noah to explain his points (maybe they are an other issue).
  5. Issue 170: referencing missing data
    Jack: we have the MUST/SHOULD/MAY fault in such a case choice here.
    Marc: Since we assumed the "close-world" approach to SOAP data model with our
          accepting IDREFs, any error on deserialization is a fault. On the other
          hand, MUST seems to require that the processor check the entire message.
    Jack: the original use of MUST in my proposal was in an important context:
          ...when deserialization encounters a broken link, it MUST fault...
    Jack: so it seems MUST is appropriate here
    Marc agreed
    We will propose to have "MUST when deserialization encounters a broken link"
    which weakens the MUST considerably. Other issues with ordering of faults etc.
    can pop up on us, as discussed on yesterday's WG telcon.
  6. Issue 177: missing accessors same as NULL?
    We agreed that the proposed two options are the ones that we have.
    Jack: there was no discussion on the original post, so maybe let's just forward
          it to the WG?
    Marc: it was just after the xmas break, it might have got lost.
    Jack will try to elicit some discussion again on dist-app.