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

RE: Position on issue 194

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:09:08 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D075D6DE1@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

For the record, I concur with this sentiment - thanks for writing it up.


> Hi all, since I won't be able to attend the following two 
>telcons, I'd like to state my position on one of the remaining 
>two issues - 194 - encodingStyle attribute on Envelope, Header.
> I believe that the attribute has no meaning on Envelope and 
>Header and that using it there is wrong (although I recognize 
>it's currently being used in this way).
> I think the spec needs to be changed at least to remove the 
>inconsistency between prose and schema.
> There has been a proposal by Henrik [1] to remove the attribute 
>altogether and I support this course because encodingStyle is not 
>widely employed (it's mentioned in messages and it may be checked 
>for, but it's not widely used to do meaningful stuff), it is 
>underspecified (What is a data encoding anyway? What can it do to 
>the message? What is the meaning of changing encodingStyle in the 
>middle of the XML tree? Where does encodingStyle apply?) and at 
>least in some implementations (including Systinet's WASP) it 
>isn't necessary for proper functioning.
> We have already reduced the attribute from being a list of URIs
>to a single URI for some similar reasons (see issues 159 [2] and
>166 [3]).

>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0294.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x159
>[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x166
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 12:09:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC