W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Binding framework & XML Version / Infoset

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:14:17 -0400
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0B49C377.28FAB875-ON85256E7D.000A3BA6@lotus.com>

I wonder whether we shouldn't say something about what the HTTP binding is 
to do if it supports only the mandatory application/soap+xml and is 
confronted with an infoset containing XML 1.1 or later content?  Does it 
fault?  How?  I think this needs to be synced up with the erratum text for 
SOAP 1.0.  I'm supposed to be preparing that, and will try to get to it 
tonight.  I am on vacation this week and there is some chance I will be a 
bit delayed in fulfilling that action, depending on how extensive the 
changes appear to be.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
04/20/2004 11:39 AM

 
        To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Binding framework & XML Version / Infoset



In Part 1, section 4:
<<
A SOAP binding specification:
[..]
* Describes how the services of the underlying protocol are used to 
transmit
  SOAP message infosets.
>>>
And then in 4.2:
<<<
The binding framework does not require that every binding use the XML 1.0
[XML 1.0]  serialization as the "on the wire" representation of the XML
infoset; compressed, encrypted, fragmented representations and so on can
be used if appropriate. A binding, if using XML 1.0 serialization of the
XML infoset, MAY mandate that a particular character encoding or set of
encodings be used.
>>>

So it looks like the default is to provide XML 1.0 serialization and if
something else is used, it has to be defined explicitely in the binding
specification.

In Part 2, the HTTP bindings does not define one single serialization
scheme, but allow different ones that can be identified by the mime type
used, but a conforming implementation MUST support application/soap+xml,
which is now restricted to XML 1.0 serialization.
In this case, the serialization scheme is not _explicitely_ stated but is
implicitly part of the media type definition, we may perhaps addsome text
in Part2 - 7.1.4 to state that the media type definition may have an
impact on the XML version used in the serialization.

I also noted that in section 5, part1, the definition of white space
characters always refer to XML 1.0, should this be changed to only "XML"
(or "the XML in which the infoset will be serialized in"?).
Thanks,

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 22:16:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:16 GMT