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

Re: [soapbuilders] Updated interop round 2 client results

From: Simon Fell <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 18:56:48 -0800
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <gg396ugk0j0er5967srlsj6g9tjouevn6f@4ax.com>
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:37:35 -0500 (EST), in soap you wrote:

>Thanks Simon,
>One more observation:
>jSOAP returns a "SOAP-ENC:base64Binary". I thought that only two forms are
>legal (wrt. xsd and SOAP-ENC): "xsd:base64Binary" and "SOAP-ENC:base64".
>Is this third form legal? I checked the SOAP schemas a while ago for our
>gSOAP implementation and I could only find "SOAP-ENC:base64" but not 
>- Robert

it depends :)

I believe that for the original SOAP 1.1 schemas, that was true, the
only options were SOAP-ENC:base64 and xsd:base64Binary. However the
SOAP 1.1 schema's have been updated, based on a draft of the 1.2
schemas, it does in fact appear that we now have a
SOAP-ENC:base64Binary type as well.

I have some serious concerns about having the schemas change, but the
spec not rev'd, given the number of semantic changes in the schemas.

Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 21:57:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC