W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2002

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

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:28:47 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E01FC6448@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>

I am happy that our spec is complete given what we do reference.
However, one of the complaints was the number of levels of indirection
between our spec and the piece of text that says UTF-8/UTF-16. 

That said, I'm comfortable with taking no action. How about everyone
else?

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
> Sent: 03 September 2002 03:04
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Marc Hadley; Nilo Mitra; Noah 
> Mendelson; Martin Gudgin
> Cc: W3C Public Archive
> Subject: 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
> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 05:29:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:22 GMT