Re: issue 9087: a proposal

So in the compliance section add something like this?
        An implementation MUST be able to support messages encoded in 
either UTF-8 or UTF-16.

I'd want this for all WSRA specs since I don't think this part of the 
issue/proposal is Transfer specific.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
05/04/2010 12:36 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject
Re: issue 9087: a proposal






I would be happy with your proposal and a statement that both UTF-8 and 
UTF-16 encodings be supported by transfer implementations.

On Apr 26, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Doug Davis wrote:


No and my text doesn't preclude it. 
I think the notion of data (the stuff in the Body) being in various xml 
versions/encoding isn't Transfer specific - Transfer just shines a bright 
light on it.  To me this isn't a Transfer specific issue.  I would think 
that if a service wants to support a certain version/encoding then it 
would do so for the entire soap envelope and not just for the data in the 
Body.  So, when the two endpoint negotiate the version/encoding for the 
soap envelope they are implicitly negotiating the version/encoding of the 
transfer data. 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 


Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com> 
04/26/2010 02:46 PM 


To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
public-ws-resource-access@w3.org, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 

Subject
Re: issue 9087: a proposal








Would you expect that all resources handled by a particular service be 
homogeneous in encoding, for example? 

On Apr 26, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Doug Davis wrote: 


If the representation needs to match the xml version/encoding of the 
envelope then I wonder if we couldn't just defer this to the soap stack? 
In other words, if the version/encoding isn't acceptable at the soap level 
then the soap stack would deal with it and its not a transfer specific 
issue. 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 

Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
04/26/2010 02:01 PM 


To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
public-ws-resource-access@w3.org 
Subject
Re: issue 9087: a proposal










I would suggest adding to the definition of the invalid representation 
fault, the xml version and encoding of the resource for recovery purposes. 
 If these are incompatible, there is no other way of determining it. 
thanks 
-bob 

On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Doug Davis wrote: 


For issue 9087 [1] what about modifying the definition of a resource to be 
the following (new text between the **'s): 

- - - - - - - - 
Resource: 
A Web service that is addressable using an endpoint reference and can be 
represented by an XML Information Set. 
** 
The resource's representation MUST representable by either zero or one 
Document Information items.  The following Information items MUST NOT 
appear as children anywhere within the Document Information item's 
children: Processing Instruction, Unexpanded Entity Reference, Document 
Type Declaration, Unparsed Entity and Notation.  The representation of the 
resource can be in any XML version supported by the resource manager, 
however, when transmitted within a SOAP Envelope the entire envelope 
(including the representation of the resource) MUST use the same XML 
version.   
** 
The representation can be retrieved using the Get operation and can be 
manipulated using the Put and Delete operations. 
- - - - - - - - 

Or if that makes the definition paragraph too long we can move the new 
text to be after the list of terms, right before the start of section 3.4 

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9087 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.