- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:03:14 -0700
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>
Looking at the HTTP binding [2] in part 2, we have two places where the
serialization is mentioned:
1) In Table 15, we say:
"Rules for carrying SOAP messages in media type "application/soap+xml"
are given in [SOAP MediaType]."
2) In Table 18, we say:
"The response message is assumed to be a SOAP envelope serialized
according the rules for carrying SOAP messages in the media type given
in the Content-Type header."
For the case of "application/soap+xml", charset issues are described in
[3] as
charset
This parameter has identical semantics to the charset
parameter of the "application/xml" media type as specified
in [RFC 3023].
And in RFC 3023, it is mentioned that
"utf-8" [RFC2279] and "utf-16" [RFC2781] are the recommended
values, representing the UTF-8 and UTF-16 charsets, respectively.
These charsets are preferred since they are supported by all
conforming processors of [XML].
Other than an editorial change in the text in 2) above to include a
missing "to" and to say "header field" rather than "header" as in
"The response message is assumed to be a SOAP envelope serialized
according to the rules for carrying SOAP messages in the media type
given in the Content-Type header field."
I think we can close this issue as being appropriately addressed in the
current text.
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x261
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.html#soapinhttp
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.html#ietf-reg
[4] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 15:03:19 UTC