Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...> writes: > > "Box, Don" wrote: > > > > Right. The SOAP approach is similar in spirit to the SML approach > > - that is, if your goal is to use XML as a serialziation format > > for your application's types, Section 8 defines a uniform method > > for translating standard programming language constructs (e.g., > > struct, class, array) into XML and XML Schema. This method is > > largely a formalization of element-normal-form encoding (which is > > a/the core concept in SML). > > Hm, if I read the specs right, something looking more or less like > object serialization is described in "8.4.1.1. Generic Records". > > Wouldn't it be more appropiate to have an own section for object > serialization (e.g. 8.4.1.2)? The "generic record" serialization > makes it uneccesarily difficult for objects to serialize > themselves completely: The object description is broken into > the type attribute of the property element and the object > content itself. Couln't objects just always be serialized > like in the array case? How do you mean "like in the array case"? For reference, using the 8.4.1.1 generic record serialization to serialize objects seems natural to me. -- Ken *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
