- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:09:54 +0900
- To: <andrea.vine@sun.com>, <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
Should we have a short call tomorrow (today for most of you) to discuss how to answer this message? Regards, Martin. At 08:31 04/09/22 -0700, Martin Gudgin wrote: >Dear Andrea and I18WSTF, > >You raised an issue, 501[1] regarding the SOAP Resource Representation >Header specification[2]. Please note that this issue covers the first 4 >points in your e-mail[3]. The XMLP working group considered your points >and has the following response: > >Points 1-3: Yes, when using the resource representation header base64 is >always a requirement, even for textual types. The SOAP envelope itself >will always be in a single character encoding. The octet stream >resulting from decoding some base64 text may well be in a different >character encoding. This is not an issue. The character encoding in use >for such data may be determined in a number of ways, including, but not >limited to; specifying the charset as part of the xmime:contentType >attribute (e.g. text/xml; charset=iso-8859-1 ), examining the XML >declaration for XML based types (e.g. <?xml version='1.0' >encoding='iso-8859-1' ?>, using the algorithm defined in Appendix F of >the XML 1.0 Recommendation for XML based types, assuming a default >character encoding defined by the specification of the media type. > >Point 4: xml:lang is not appropriate for use on the rep:Data element as >base64 is not human-readable text. A SOAP message can carry multiple >instances of the resource representation header and many such headers >may carry representations of the same resource. Thus a given SOAP >message could carry multiple representations of a given resource, each >one in a different human readable language. The resource representation >header has an extensibility mechanism that allows additional attributes >to be specified. Such an attribute could be defined to indicate the >human readable language of a text based resource. We note that there is >an example of how to use this extensibility mechanism in Section >4.4.3[5] of the CR version of the Resource Representation SOAP Header >Block specification[4] > >The working group does not expect to change the Resprentation header >specification as a result of closing this issue. > >Regards > >Martin Gudgin >Microsoft Corp. >For the XML Protocol Working Group > >[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x501 >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-rep-20040608/ >[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Sep/0000.html >[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-soap12-rep-20040826/ >[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-soap12-rep-20040826/#rep-http-headers
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 13:10:45 UTC