I would also rewrite
[EX-7] as:
<xsd:element
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
name="GetLastTradePriceInput">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence> <xsd:element
ref="foo:TradePriceRequest" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType> </xsd:element>
Hi
Alex,
If I understand
your section 2 correctly, I think that your proposed mapping (2C) is
inconsistent with our previous Issue 39 resolution, in the sense that the
element constructed from a part with an "element" attribute should
take its name from the value of the "element" attribute and not from the
part name.
Ugo
Hi Yaron and all others,
Here is
the simpified version. I trimmed all
the open options and some descriptive text. I cut off 25% of content. I
hope that is easier for people to follow the proposal now.
But, you
guys got questions in the simplified version. You may be able to find the
answers and justification of the proposal in the original version.
Thanks!
Regards, Alex Yiu
Yaron Y.
Goland wrote:
I long ago
accepted that I'm not smarter than your average bear so perhaps I'm the
only one who finds it impossible to read the proposal because of all the
interlocking options. When I got to the point where I felt the need to
draw a graph to try and understand the relationship between the various
options I knew it was time to stop.
May I humbly request that you
repost your proposal without any options what so ever? Just specify how
you think this should all work and leave out the choices. If you want to
have a separate section at the end that explores different options and why
you didn't pursue them that would be great but it isn't necessary.
Since you are doing the work you get to suggest how things should
work. If people don't like what you propose then let them suggest options
and do the work to flesh those options out. But having a document that
seems to be arguing with itself is just too confusing for me.
I
think there are really important and very cool ideas in the proposal but
the proposal itself needs to be simplified in order to let me, at least,
get to them.
Thanks,
Yaron
Alex Yiu
wrote:
Hi all,
As promised in the conf
call last week, here is the draft proposal for Issue 103.
Please note that is a draft version of the proposal, NOT the
final version that will be used for voting yet. Especially, there
are some options listed in the proposal for item (1B) and (2C) and
(3B) (with some preferences expressed).
Please voice your
opinions so that we know that we are solving Issue 103 in a right
way.
Thanks!
Regards, Alex Yiu
|