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

Re: Position on issue 194

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:57:18 -0400
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3EA13841.B07FA760-ON85256BAB.006EA122@lotus.com>

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but I want to make sure that I 
understand your proposal.  The believe that what you're saying is: "SOAP 
already requires that you understand the correct interpretation of any 
header or body block that you process.  If you understand that, then you 
will surely know whether the block is to be interpreted as encoded, and if 
so how."

If I have correctly understood you, then I think the proposal stacks up 
this way:

Advantages of scrapping encodingStyle:
* Oe less mechanism to describe, implement, and test
* The semantics were not clear, and there were a number of edge 
conditions.  By leaving out the mechanism, we avoid the need to worry 
about any of that.

* With SOAP 1.1 is possible to write generalized middleware that decodes 
graphs without knowing anything about the QNames or definitions of 
particular header and body elements.  With your proposal, it would be 
necessary to make each implementation aware (one way or another) of which 
things were to be encoded, and which not.  The messages become somewhat 
less self describing.
* We lose a level of cross checking. 

I can see it either way.  Thank you.

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 16:14:32 UTC

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