Hi Matt, On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 03:52:24PM -0000, Matt Long wrote: > My comments are off-base, in the fact that Bindings [43] strictly > associates > with SOAPv.1.2 and Bindings[53] strictly associates with SOAPv1.1. > (Sorry 'bout > that). > Therefore, if Jose's proposed text for [43] is acceptable, then I would > think > that 'similar' text is needed for [53] regarding the SOAPv1.1 binding. > Albeit, > that a URI equivalence for 'literal' does not exist for SOAPv1.1 in > terms of > env:encodingStyle between v1.1 and v1.2. Therefore, the omission of the > encodingStyle attribute for SOAPv1.1 is correct syntax for > env:Envelope > env:Envelope/env:Body > env:Envelope/env:Body/* Your proposal makes sense. I removed the unencoded and added "literal" instead to p. 53. I left the rest of the text as-is: <quote> [53]XKMS implementers using SOAP 1.1 messaging shall use request-response messaging and carry the XKMS messages as literal content within the SOAP Body element. The SOAP 1.1 Section 5 encoding model shall not be used. SOAP 1.1 messages carrying XKMS content shall use the UTF-8 character encoding to insure interoperability. </quote> P. 43 already carries the modifs. we had agreed upon. I committed to the Editor's draft[2]. -jose [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS-REC-DRAFT/REC-DRAFT-xkms-part-2.htmlReceived on Friday, 24 June 2005 12:09:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:44 UTC