Proposal to resolve ISSUE-65, complete ACTION-228

Distilling, and revising from the email:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0009.html

===> Add to section 2.2.3:

[Definition: soapjms:contentEncoding] (xsd:string)
   * Identifies the transformation that has been applied to the message 
payload body.  Contains one of the values defined by IANA for the 
Content-Coding values of [IANA HTTP PARAMS].  Defaults to "identity" if 
the property is not present.
   * Corresponds to the JMS Message property named SOAPJMS_contentEncoding
   * [Definition: If the content encoding is specified, it is checked to 
ensure that it matches the content encoding values supported. A fault 
MUST be generated with subcode contentEncodingNotSupported if the 
encoding values do not match.†]

===> Change to section 2.4:

Replace "The bytes or characters of the JMS Message payload correspond 
to the MIME format as indicated by the definition of the contentType 
property" with:

"After being decoded according to the contentEncoding property, the 
bytes or characters of the JMS Message payload correspond to the MIME 
format as indicated by the definition of the contentType property"

===> Addition to section 2.4.1

New bullet point:
  * Use of the contentEncoding property is unsupported, since the 
underlying message payload is not raw bytes.

===> Add to section 2.8

Add an entry for contentEncodingNotSupported to the list in this section.

===> Add to section A.1 (Normative References)

[IANA HTTP PARAMS]
   Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Parameters, Internet Assigned 
Names And Numbers (IANA), Sept. 2, 2009, Available at 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parameters.xml

===== ******* =====

Key differences from email:
  * No notion of "accept" encoding
  * Added normative reference to IANA registry
  * Removed spurious definition items
  * No attempt to identify a contentEncoding mismatch with the actual 
content.
  * No additional section describing content encoding.

Also, please see the concerns that I raised in my other email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0032.html

Thoughts?

-Eric.

Received on Monday, 29 November 2010 20:43:29 UTC