W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle

From: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:11:15 +0100
Message-ID: <000a01c1e51e$4922edd0$b47ba8c0@zerogravitas>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "XML Protocol Discussion"
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle


>
> Nice write-up indeed! Quick question regarding P3 "Disallow
> encodingStyle on Envelope, Header and Body. For Q2 - keep status quo"
> where the status quo for Q2 is "The encodingStyle applies to the element
> it appears on and descendants".
>
> In your example for P3 [1], you show the encodingStyle attribute used on
> the header blocks "First" and "Second", but as we allow/use "role" and
> "mU" attributes on header blocks, then this seems to conflict with the
> notion of the encoding applying to "self", that is, having it apply to
> the "First" and "Second" elements, no?

I think that depends on how you see the prohibition on attributes in SOAP
encoding. I see it as saying 'your data must be serialized as elements',
rather than 'you must not use any attributes at all'. Given that mU and role
are in the envelope namespace, I don't think this is a problem. If it were
we'd not be able to change encodings inside a serialization because the
encodingStyle attribute would not be legal either.

Gudge

>
> Henrik
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0150.html
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 04:10:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT