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

[i48]: encoding style { was [i47]: XML Protocol WG Issues list d iscussion }

From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:43:14 -0500
Message-ID: <472E220BA79DD11186340060B06B38D905BD7FD2@tpantmail1.ssr.hp.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:05:44 -0500 (EST) Frank DeRose wrote [2]:
>... I agree
>completely with the statement Noah made in today's conference call: the
>degree of interoperability XML protocol implementations achieve will be
>inversely proportional to the number of encodingStyles that sprout up. 
>The only question is how this happens. Should the XMLP WG define a default
>encodingStyle? Should it simply adopt the one from the SOAP spec? Should
>this problem be turned over to some other W3C WG, like the XML Schema WG? Or
>should the W3C not get involved at all and let the marketplace sort out the
>Frank DeRose

So, this is exactly the issue in i48 [3] and, depending upon your reading, 
i47 [1].

To be clear, I do believe we should endorse encoding rules somehow.  I think
we need to explore "how".  

If we can find a way to define how to identify the coding style (using
the "encodingStyle" attribute sounds fine), and then suggest that the
rules defined in SOAP/1.1 be used, we'll save what I think will be a lot
of time and energy to redefine something (the SOAP encoding style) that:

1) is already being used (and for those using it will possibly be non-trivial 
   to change)
2) is already adequately defined elsewhere (in a W3C Note)
3) does not bear directly on the other parts of the specification which
   arguably will require our full attention to bring to rec in the time
   we have, and
4) is evidently controversial, so that what actually ends up in our
   document (by the time we're done chewing it up) may well be different 
   from what's already being used (i.e. SOAP/1.1), and thereby bring to the
   fore the difficulties mentioned in #1

My hope is that we can avoid what looks to me like a rathole and still
provide the desired interoperability.  I think the most contentious point 
is:  what does "adequately defined" (#2) mean?  Can we simply point to the 
W3C Note?  Or, do we need something more durable, like an appendix?

Clearly, creating widely usable encoding styles will be an ongoing and
important activity within the XML Protocol Activity. 

Best regards,
David Ezell

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Mar/0166.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Mar/0262.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Mar/0167.html
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 18:43:48 UTC

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