> > ---------- > > 5.1: on operation: > > whttp:contentCodingDefault="xs:string"?? > > > Remove the extra ">", > DONE (for all occurrences in the SOAP binding) > QUESTION: shouldn't we do this in the HTTP binding as well? Not sure what you mean - I don't see any typos in the HTTP binding syntax summary. > > whttp:queryParameterSeparator="xs:string"? > > and I think add a second question mark to the latter. > > > DONE (in the SOAP binding) > QUESTION: same as above. If you mean the double question marks, the notation is only defined for the SOAP binding and that's sufficient. > > ---------- > > RE CR143, should it be whttp:contentCoding or whttp:contentEncoding? I > > assumed (and implemented in the test suite) that we'd parallel as > closely as > > possible the HTTP Content-Encoding header. One or the other needs to > > change... > > > The other ;-) > > I've looked at the HTTP/1.1 spec before implementing the resolution. The > attribute is indeed called "Content-Encoding", but the functionality is > simply named "content coding". I've used the latter terminology. Yeah, I'd still prefer to name it after the artifact than after some terminology in the spec. Also, content-coding is an abstraction for functionality available through both Transfer-Coding and Content-Encoding. So one familiar with the term still might not know perfectly which concrete manifestation we're talking about. I'm not going to change the test suite just yet ;-). Further cogitation required.Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 17:46:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 February 2007 17:46:29 GMT