--------- Original Message --------
From:
"Matt Long" <mlong@mvsquared.net>
To: "jose.kahan@w3.org"
<jose.kahan@w3.org>
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Issue
339-ml] Use of XKMS inside a SOAP 1.2 message
Date: 23/06/05
12:26
Jose,
I prefer the following as
it clearly defines the literal XML form. The use of 'equivalent'
provides the mechanism for a SOAPv1.1 to understand to omit the
env:encodingStyle attribute. Perhaps a link to [1] assigned to
env:encodingStyle might be advisable.
<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>
[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/#soapencattr-Matt
--------- Original Message --------
From:
jose.kahan@w3.org
To: "Matt Long" <mlong@mvsquared.net>
Cc:
www-xkms@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Issue 339-ml] Use of XKMS inside a SOAP 1.2
message
Date: 23/06/05 09:41
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
________________________________________________
Message
sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2