W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2001

Re: [i48]: XML Protocol WG Issues list discussion

From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:32:48 -0500
Message-ID: <472E220BA79DD11186340060B06B38D905BD7F95@tpantmail1.ssr.hp.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Wed 3/21/2001 8:39 AM -0500 Marwan Sabbouh wrote:
>...On the other hand, not adhering to a particular encoding provides for
>interoperability problems..  Should we also suggest the XML Schema group
>encoding model?I think the world can live with a few distinct encoding
>models, but not more.  This way, various soap processors can accommodate
>them.  However, if more than a few encoding models evolved, then we have
>a serious issue on hand.

Hi Marwan:
I think the issue is not whether the encoding is useful:  it's whether
such encodings are actually an application issue.  The SOAP encoding rules 
are well developed and useful.  As a WG we must decide if our specification
can reference parts of the SOAP specification as it is.

Personally, I believe that we should provide a way to identify a flavor of
encoding rules to be used on message content (probably using the mechanism
in SOAP but reiterated in our spec), and leave the actual encoding machinery 
out of scope for the documents we produce.

If we include such machinery, we run the risk of relying on parts of
it to specify (e.g.) RPC.  And then we're stuck.

best regards,
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2001 11:33:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC