Re: issue 9087: a proposal

I would be happy with your proposal and a statement that both UTF-8 and UTF-16 encodings be supported by transfer implementations.

On Apr 26, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Doug Davis wrote:

> 
> No and my text doesn't preclude it. 
> I think the notion of data (the stuff in the Body) being in various xml versions/encoding isn't Transfer specific - Transfer just shines a bright light on it.  To me this isn't a Transfer specific issue.  I would think that if a service wants to support a certain version/encoding then it would do so for the entire soap envelope and not just for the data in the Body.  So, when the two endpoint negotiate the version/encoding for the soap envelope they are implicitly negotiating the version/encoding of the transfer data. 
> 
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 
> 
> 
> Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
> 04/26/2010 02:46 PM
> 
> To
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> public-ws-resource-access@w3.org, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> Subject
> Re: issue 9087: a proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you expect that all resources handled by a particular service be homogeneous in encoding, for example? 
> 
> On Apr 26, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Doug Davis wrote: 
> 
> 
> If the representation needs to match the xml version/encoding of the envelope then I wonder if we couldn't just defer this to the soap stack?  In other words, if the version/encoding isn't acceptable at the soap level then the soap stack would deal with it and its not a transfer specific issue. 
> 
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 
> 
> Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com> 
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> 04/26/2010 02:01 PM
> 
> 
> To
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> Subject
> Re: issue 9087: a proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest adding to the definition of the invalid representation fault, the xml version and encoding of the resource for recovery purposes.  If these are incompatible, there is no other way of determining it. 
> thanks 
> -bob 
> 
> On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Doug Davis wrote: 
> 
> 
> For issue 9087 [1] what about modifying the definition of a resource to be the following (new text between the **'s): 
> 
> - - - - - - - - 
> Resource: 
> A Web service that is addressable using an endpoint reference and can be represented by an XML Information Set. 
> ** 
> The resource's representation MUST representable by either zero or one Document Information items.  The following Information items MUST NOT appear as children anywhere within the Document Information item's children: Processing Instruction, Unexpanded Entity Reference, Document Type Declaration, Unparsed Entity and Notation.  The representation of the resource can be in any XML version supported by the resource manager, however, when transmitted within a SOAP Envelope the entire envelope (including the representation of the resource) MUST use the same XML version.   
> ** 
> The representation can be retrieved using the Get operation and can be manipulated using the Put and Delete operations. 
> - - - - - - - - 
> 
> Or if that makes the definition paragraph too long we can move the new text to be after the list of terms, right before the start of section 3.4 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9087 
> 
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 
> 
>