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

RE: literal XML encoding?

From: Keith Ballinger <keithba@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:15:57 -0700
Message-ID: <8E937B8C67213B41BB5C87E2C6FCC22301FB23E7@red-msg-29.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <francis@redrice.com>, "Marc J. Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
.NET Web Services omits an encoding style for literal XML.

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Norton [mailto:francis@redrice.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:51 AM
To: Marc J. Hadley
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: literal XML encoding?



"Marc J. Hadley" wrote:
> 
> 
> The actual value of the encodingStyle attribute can be anything you
wish
> provided it is a URI. It might be a URL within your organisations
> domain, e.g. in your case you might choose
> http://www.redrice.com/literalxmlencoding or something along those
> lines. The SOAP processor doesn't expect to find anything at this URL,
> it is just used as a unique identifier for your encoding.
> 
Thank you for this. 

I see that an alternative is to use
"http://xml.apache.org/xml-soap/literalxml" as an informal standard.

And another alternative appears to be using not using an encodingStyle
atteibute at all, as in UDDI.

> See section 4.1.1 of the SOAP/1.1 specification.
> 

Why does it need encoding at all? What could be more natural than
embedding a well-formed XML fragment in an XML message structure?

And if it does need encoding, why is there no standard way of specifying
this?

Francis.
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 13:30:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT