RE: Editorial issue 261: Choose character encoding UTF8/16

Doh, Gudge fell off the list :(

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
>Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 11:43
>To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Marc Hadley; Nilo Mitra; Noah Mendelson
>Cc: W3C Public Archive
>Subject: Editorial issue 261: Choose character encoding UTF8/16 
>
>
>
>Looking at the HTTP binding [2] in part 2, we have two places 
>where the serialization is mentioned:
>
>1) In Table 15, we say:
>
>"Rules for carrying SOAP messages in media type 
>"application/soap+xml" are given in [SOAP MediaType]."
>
>2) In Table 18, we say:
>
>"The response message is assumed to be a SOAP envelope 
>serialized according the rules for carrying SOAP messages in 
>the media type given in the Content-Type header."
>
>For the case of "application/soap+xml", charset issues are 
>described in [3] as 
>
>	charset 
>
>	This parameter has identical semantics to the charset
>	parameter of the "application/xml" media type as specified
>	in [RFC 3023].
>
>And in RFC 3023, it is mentioned that 
>
>      "utf-8" [RFC2279] and "utf-16" [RFC2781] are the recommended
>      values, representing the UTF-8 and UTF-16 charsets, respectively.
>      These charsets are preferred since they are supported by all
>      conforming processors of [XML].
>
>Other than an editorial change in the text in 2) above to 
>include a missing "to" and to say "header field" rather than 
>"header" as in
>
>"The response message is assumed to be a SOAP envelope 
>serialized according to the rules for carrying SOAP messages 
>in the media type given in the Content-Type header field."
>
>I think we can close this issue as being appropriately 
>addressed in the current text.
>
>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
>mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com 
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x261
>[2] 
>http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.html#soapi
nhttp
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.html#ietf-reg
[4] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt