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

Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:43:36 +0100 (CET)
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: Asir S Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110301840570.23943-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Chris,
 encodingStyle has exactly the scoping you want. 8-)
 Multiple encodings here is not meant as multiple _different_
encodings, it's more like "the data is encoded using these rules,
but actually using these - more specific - rules, too".
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Christopher Ferris wrote:

 > +1 to KISS. Has anyone a demonstrable need for support
 > for multiple encodings? Couldn't the encodingStyle attribute
 > be context sensitive (eg. it applies to the element on
 > which it is declared and all of its decendants until
 > a subsequent encodingStyle declaration is made)?
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Chris
 >
 > Asir S Vedamuthu wrote:
 >
 > > Jacek,
 > >
 > > Thank you for looking into this.
 > >
 > >
 > >>If it is useful for a receiver to know that this data was
 > >>serialized according to the subset (2), while other receivers
 > >>might just fall back to the general set (1) not knowing/caring
 > >>about the restriction, the multiplicity of encodingStyle might be
 > >>justified.
 > >>
 > >
 > > As you said, this needs to be clarified with lots of text and examples.
 > > Also, per your description, then we need additional constraints,
 > >
 > > - any most specific encodingStyle in the whitespace delimited list must be a
 > > valid restriction of the next encodingStyle in this list. BTW, I do not know
 > > what restriction means in this context.
 > >
 > > - all of the encodingStyles in the whitespace delimited list must use the
 > > same data model (there is some contention if encodingStyle implicitly
 > > specifies a data model)
 > >
 > >
 > >>If it is useful for a receiver to know that this data
 > >>was serialized according to the subset (2)
 > >>
 > >
 > > Are there any benefits in knowing that this data was serialized according to
 > > the subset?
 > >
 > > Lets say a receiver implements only a subset of SOAP Encoding and likes to
 > > know if parts of the message were serialized using a subset. Per issue 48
 > > resolution [1], I do not believe that we encourage subsetting SOAP Encoding.
 > > It is in take it or leave it mode - "but if they claim conformance with the
 > > SOAP encoding they must pass the SOAP encoding conformance tests". Then this
 > > hypothetical receiver does not conform to SOAP Encoding.
 > >
 > >
 > > Like Rich and you, I vote for simple things and will be happy to see this go
 > > ..
 > >
 > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0242.html
 > >
 > >
 > > Regards, Asir
 > >
 > > ----- Original Message -----
 > > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
 > > To: "Asir S Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>
 > > Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
 > > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:30 AM
 > > Subject: Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific
 > > encodingStyles,HOW?
 > >
 > >
 > > Asir,
 > >  I personally never saw the need for the multiple encodingStyle
 > > values. The example in the spec hints at some kind of possible
 > > "restriction hierarchy" where for example we have a set of rules
 > > (encStyle 1) and a subset thereof (encStyle 2).
 > >  If it is useful for a receiver to know that this data was
 > > serialized according to the subset (2), while other receivers
 > > might just fall back to the general set (1) not knowing/caring
 > > about the restriction, the multiplicity of encodingStyle might be
 > > justified.
 > >  But I think we do need to clarify the use of multiple values in
 > > encodingStyle if we actually want to keep it.
 > >  You would hear from me no objection to removing encodingStyle
 > > multiplicity, though. The soapbuilder in me would be glad for
 > > this simplification of SOAP. 8-)
 > >  I don't think the scoping of encStyle solves the same problem as
 > > the "more specific" encoding applies in the whole scope of the
 > > attribute.
 > >  Best regards,
 > >
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > >
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Asir S Vedamuthu wrote:
 > >
 > >  > Issue
 > >  >
 > >  > SOAP uses encodingStyle attribute to indicate the encoding rules used for
 > >  > serializing parts of a SOAP message. encodingStyle attribute is a
 > > whitespace
 > >  > delimited list. Each item in the list is type anyURI, XML Schema built-in
 > >  > type. And, specification says that sets of rules should be listed in the
 > >  > order most specific to least specific.
 > >  >
 > >  > First, thus far I have not seen any implementations that support this,
 > > "sets
 > >  > of rules .. most specific to least specific". Have you seen any?
 > >  >
 > >  > Second, what does it mean when the spec says "most specific to least
 > >  > specific"? How will a machine figure out when to apply what?
 > >  >
 > >  > Third, per Jacek's e-mail [2], encodingStyle attribute implicitly
 > > specifies
 > >  > a data model - say object-graph data model, RDF, UML, etc. What does it
 > > mean
 > >  > to say that the data model appears as "most specific to least specific"?
 > > mm
 > >  > .. it is a changing data model. isn't it?
 > >  >
 > >  > Fourth, encodingStyle has a scope. Its scope is its owner element and
 > > that
 > >  > element's descendents. The scope of encodingStyle is similar to the scope
 > > of
 > >  > default namespace declarations. Using this feature, it is possible to
 > >  > specify different specific encodingStyle at various element information
 > >  > items in the SOAP message. If so, is there a need for specifying "most
 > >  > specific to least specific" at one element information item when the same
 > >  > thing can be achieved by specifying just one encodingStyle at various
 > >  > element information items?
 > >  >
 > >  > I request the ETF to investigate the following,
 > >  >
 > >  > (a) Is there a need for "most specific to least specific" encoding rules
 > > and
 > >  > changing data models?
 > >  > (b) Does the scope of the encodingStyle attribute solve the same problem?
 > >  > (c) For interoperability reasons, how can we better articulate this
 > > feature
 > >  > using more prose, details and examples?
 > >  > (d) How does the "most specific to least specific" encoding rules measure
 > >  > against our requirements and charter "a mechanism for serializing data
 > >  > representing non-syntactic data models in a manner that maximizes the
 > >  > interoperability of independently developed Web applications" [3]
 > >  >
 > >  > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapencattr
 > >  > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0192.html
 > >  > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlp-reqs-20010319/#N400
 > >  >
 > >  > Regards,
 > >  >
 > >  > Asir S Vedamuthu
 > >  >
 > >  > webMethods, Inc.
 > >  > 703-460-2513 or asirv@webmethods.com
 > >  > http://www.webmethods.com/
 > >  >
 > >
 > >
 >
 >
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 12:43:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT