- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:54:29 +0200
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- CC: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Nilo Mitra <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, Noah Mendelson <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, W3C Public Archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
I've implemented your suggested change s/header/header field/. Actually, I've swept through the entire spec (part 2) and repeated the change where appropriate. (BTW, RFC 2616 is inconsistent in its use of header vs. header field.) I have also fixed replaced [SOAP MediaType] with a reference to appendix A, since the IETF draft is now an empty shell and its content was moved to this appendix. +1 to your other proposals. Jean-Jacques. Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > 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 Tuesday, 3 September 2002 05:54:49 UTC