> I don't see XMI as being multiple encodings. What I meant > was use of mixed encodings (a little bit of this, a smattering of > that...) We seem to have consensus that encodingStyle should be a single URI, not a list of them in increasing order of specificity. BTW, I only just realized one way the current specification could be useful; the sender could refine Sec5 encoding to indicate that no strings are shared (e.g., pointer_default(unique) in DCE/COM, or "noalias" in an ANSI C draft). I still think it's too complicated to deal with, since you can get mostly (exactly?) the same effect by using the "official" encoding URI as a prefix (last half of penultimate paragraph of 4.1.1. We use multiple encodings within a single SOAP message; it's the only way we can do SOAP RPC where one of the parameters is XML. The first and last paragraphs of 4.1.1 (SOAP v1.1) make this possible. /r$ -- Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption http://www.zolera.comReceived on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 10:02:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 October 2006 00:08:44 GMT