Re: Semantic Nit

Hi Matt,

Would this affect interop? If so, I'm totally against
the change at this stage in the process.

If not then its an editorial clarification, and I'd have
no problem with it (but I'd also want to see that someone
more SOAP-savvy than likes it too),

Stephen.

Matt Long wrote:

> Section 3.1.1  (Binding) See [1]
> 
>  
> 
> "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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Matt Long
> MV Squared Technologies
> mlong@mvsquared.net
> 901-848-2640
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________
> Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.2

Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 11:37:48 UTC