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

Re: Proposed text for issues rec20 and rec22 - Part 2

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:22:40 -0400
To: michael.mahan@nokia.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9C2785C1.7B673F41-ON85256E98.007515AC@lotus.com>

 I am in a meeting and have not reviewed Michael's text in as much detail 
as I should have, so my response may have been confusing.  Seeing the 
reference to XML 1.1 I thought he was carrying over all the text that was 
including XML 1.1 support in the encoding and datamodel.  I see that's not 
true...sorry for the confusion. 

Let me clarify:   I'm on the fence as to whether we need to make any 
changes at all to the encoding and data model to mark the emergence of XML 
1.1.  At worst, without the changes he proposes, the data model might be 
taken to allow XML 1.1 content, but not be serializable in SOAP.  Either 
way is OK with me:  if we want to call out text along the lines of what 
Michael proposes I have no problem with that.   Alternately, I think I 
could easily live with no changes to the rec in this area, as suggested 
below.  Sorry for the confusion. 

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








Noah Mendelsohn
05/18/2004 04:58 PM


        To:     <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
        cc:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Proposed text for issues rec20 and rec22 - Part 2


Isn't all of this overtaken by our decision >NOT< to allow XML 1.1 in SOAP 

Infosets?  I can't think of any reason we need changes to part 2.

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








<michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
05/18/2004 03:02 PM

 
        To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Proposed text for issues rec20 and rec22 - Part 2



The following is my action item results to consolidate and address the 
outstanding 
part 2 rec 20 issues in respect to the new position the WG has taken 
regarding 
XML 1.1. 

r, Mike

======================
3.1.2 Encoding Simple Values
<current>
The lexical value of a graph node representing a simple value is the 
sequence of 
Unicode characters identified by the character information item children 
of the 
element information item representing that node. The element information 
item 
representing a simple value node MAY have among its attributes a 
'nodeType' attribute 
information item (see 3.1.7 nodeType Attribute Information Item). Note 
that certain 
Unicode characters cannot be represented in XML (see XML 1.0 [XML 1.0]). 
</current>

<proposed>
The lexical value of a graph node representing a simple value is the 
sequence of 
Unicode characters identified by the character information item children 
of the 
element information item representing that node. The element information 
item 
representing a simple value node MAY have among its attributes a 
'nodeType' attribute 
information item (see 3.1.7 nodeType Attribute Information Item). Note 
that certain 
Unicode characters cannot be represented in XML (see XML 1.0 [XML 1.0] 
>,[ref to XML 1.1]<). 
</proposed>
======================
2. SOAP Data Model
<current>
The SOAP Data Model represents application-defined data structures and 
values as a 
directed edge-labeled graph of nodes. Components of this graph are 
described in the 
following sections.
</current>

<proposed>
The SOAP Data Model represents application-defined data structures and 
values as a 
directed edge-labeled graph of nodes. Components of this graph are 
described in the 
following sections. >Note that the SOAP Data Model is based on the XML 
Infoset that is 
serializable in XML 1.0 and as such does not support any of the parts of 
XML 1.1 that 
is inconsistent with that Infoset.<
</proposed>

I think this covers Noah's issues [1] in sections 
 - 2.1.1
 - 2.2, 2.3
 - 3.1.3
=======================
<issue>
3.1.4  [5] discusses computing type names.  We might want to make clear 
that, unless XML schema is revised, type names cannot have >XML 1.0 names. 


 Ref to schema recommendation.
</issue>

<open>
not sure what to propose here
</open>

=======================
<issue>
4.2.1 [6] on RPC invocation defers to appendix B on name mapping [7], 
which in turn refers to the [8] 1999 version of namespaces.  Probably not 
broken in an XML 1.1 world, but arguably surprising or confusing. Consider 


an RPC method name that has a character that is not a legal name character 


in the 1999 version of namespaces, but is legal according to the newer and 


also current "Namespaces in XML 1.1" [9].  Per our recommendation, that 
method name should be escaped, even if you are using XML 1.1.  As I say, 
not broken but confusing.
</issue>

<recommendation>
I think this is now a non-issue. All RPC method names would have to derive 


from an XML 1.0 serializeable Infoset.
</recommendation> 
=======================

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0004.html
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2004 17:23:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:18 GMT