Re: Semantic Nit

Hi Matt,

I showed the original text and your proposed modificationss to Carine 
Bournez and she said that:

<quote>
I think it is equivalent, but the original text was more clear about what
"unencoded" means (i.e. not using the optional SOAP 1.2 encoding).
Literal is quite obscure to me.
</quote>

Is there a definition some place of how the coding of the content
for Body:literal should be done? If not, I propose we just remove the
rationale and leave the paragraph as:

<quote>
XKMS implementers shall use SOAP document style request-response
messaging with the XKMS messages defined in Part 1 carried as unencoded Body
element content. 
</quote>

Thanks,

-jose

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:27:47PM -0000, Matt Long wrote:
> Section 3.1.1  (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