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

Issue with encodingStyle

From: Tim Ewald <tjewald@develop.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:34:53 -0500
To: "XMLDISTAPP" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006001c1affd$cdfbc320$b185413f@northpole>
So why not do away with the encodingStyle attribute altogether?

If the assumption is that a SOAP node should be able to process any
legal SOAP message, whether it has artifacts of an encoding or not, why
indicate that they exist. In short, what's the point of having a hint to
say that a message was encoded using a particular encoding style if the
SOAP node is expected to process the message in any case?

Tim-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Layman
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:12 PM
> To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; cunnings@us.ibm.com
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue with encodingStyle
> 
> 
> I agree with Noah's observation that we cannot and should not
> try to forbid people from having structures without the 
> encodingStyle attribute but otherwise matching the pattern 
> used by an encoding.
> 
> Regarding the suggestion "For (a portion of a) SOAP block or
> blocks to be recognizeable as encoded, the application MUST 
> indicate the encoding style using the encodingStyle 
> attribute....", I think this would be misleading, since what 
> it literally says is equivalent to "without the encodingStyle 
> attribute, an otherwise-clueless processor will not recognize 
> that a block is encoded in a certain way."  This is true, but 
> by using the capital-letters word MUST, which connotes a firm 
> requirement, it implies that encoding is mandatory, which is 
> not the literal meaning.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 4:44 PM
> To: cunnings@us.ibm.com
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue with encodingStyle
> 
> Bob Cunnings asks:
> 
> >> What is your opinion of the proposal to change:
> 
> >> ..."SHOULD indicate their encoding style using
> >> the encodingStyle attribute"
> 
> >> to
> 
> >> ..."MUST indicate their encoding style using the encodingStyle 
> >> attribute"
> 
> I think you're asking me, as you're replying to my note.  Honestly, I
> don't think that particular proposal changes things very 
> much.  Either 
> way, if the encoding is named in the attribute, generalized SOAP 
> processors know about it.  Either way, if you leave it out, 
> you have a 
> perfectly legal SOAP message and the processor will take it to be 
> unencoded.  How we can prohibit someone from sending something that 
> appears to be encoded but really isn't, I'm not sure. 
> 
> What would make more sense to me would be:
> 
> "For (a portion of a) SOAP block or blocks to be
> recognizeable as encoded, 
> the application MUSTindicate the encoding style using the 
> encodingStyle 
> attribute...."  That would have some teeth and would be OK 
> with me.  On 
> the other hand, I don't have much trouble with the status quo either. 
> Thanks very much.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 12:36:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT