Re: Semantic Nit

Hi folks,

I'm closing the issues this week as Shivaram is not available.

Any thoughts on how to address this one? It looks like a late change in
implementations (literal vs uuencoded), unless literal is the term
used by SOAP to mean uuencoded.

-jose

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:05:17PM -0000, Matt Long wrote:
> 
> Section 3.1.1  (SOAP Binding) See [1]
> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
> "XKMS implementers shall use SOAP document style request-response messaging
> with the XKMS messages defined in Part 1 carried as unencoded Body element
> content. The SOAP 1.2 RPC representation, and requisite encoding style, are not
> used. The potential benefits of using the RPC representation do not justify the
> additional effort required to define a mapping from the Part 1 messages to an
> appropriate encoding style."
>  
> Suggest:
> XKMS implementers shall use SOAP document style request-response messaging with
> the XKMS messages defined in Part 1 carried as a literal Body element content.
>  
> Justification:
> It is unambiguously clear that the XKMS message is of document-literal form. 
> The semantic justification of why encoding was not selected is irrelevant.
>  
> Comments?
>  
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2-bindings/#XKMS_2_0_Section_3_1