Re: [Issue 339-ml] Use of XKMS inside a SOAP 1.2 message

Matt,

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:40:54AM -0000, Matt Long wrote:
>  I'm luke warm (but ok) with the term 'not encoded'.  However, I would claim
> that 'not encoded' could mean an element encoded with env:encodingStyle with
> the value 'empty string'  (Which indicates no claims are made to the
> encoding).  Semantically, I would tend to think that the prohibition of
> allowing env:encodingStyle to be encoded on the following elements is actually
> what is inferred.
> 
> env:Envelope
> env:Envelope/env:Body
> env:Envelope/env:Body/*

I fully agree with your comment.

How does the following change looks?

<quote>
[43]XKMS implementers shall use SOAP document style request-response
messaging with the XKMS messages defined in Part 1 carried as literal
Body element content. Unless stated explicitly, applications should
assume that the Body content has the SOAP 1.2 env:encodingStyle
attribute with the value
"http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/encoding/none".
</quote>

This way we're still compatible with today's implementations and 
leave the possibility of having other encodings if evolution 
requires that they are used. 

If we want to be more strict and follow exactly what the text
said before "unencoded", I would change the paragraph as follows:

<quote>
[43]XKMS implementers shall use SOAP document style request-response
messaging with the XKMS messages defined in Part 1 carried as literal
Body element content. This is equivalent to associating the Body
content with a SOAP 1.2 env:encodingStyle
attribute that has the value 
"http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/encoding/none".
</quote> 

Which seems better? I'm not sure if it's safe to assume that everyone
supports this SOAP attribute or the different encodings.

-jose