Part 3: Added Application Feature; pending questions (was Re: Review LC drafts now!)

* Jonathan Marsh <> [2004-07-27 08:59-0700]
> Part 3:

I realized that the AD Feature's HTTP serialization ([1] and [2]) had
been omitted. I have added it:;%20charset=utf-8

However, while integrating it, I realized that there were pending
editorial notes in there that I think we can quickly resolve:

- SHOULD [ed: MUST?]
  I propose MUST, as per Glen's email[3].

- Where the element information item contains content that cannot be
  directly encoded per the HTTP specification, it MUST be escaped.
  [ed: how?]

  I am afraid that an escaping mechanism may be complex. And we
  haven't specified any. I would propose to:
  + only the token production is allowed for local names.
  + the value needs to be serialized in UTF-8. When either of this is
    not possible, the EII must be ignored.

- such as an understanding of a <constraint> specified in WSDL [ed:
  constraint is not defined]

  <constraint> appears in the example in Part 2, but isn't defined.

- The contents of each such HTTP header will be placed in a child
  element of the data property [ed: should we define a particular
  "wrapper" element here as the top level one?]

  Good question. I don't think it's necessary.

- Each child element information item is generated by using the HTTP
  header name as the element information item local name [ed: should
  we define a particular namespace?]

  I propose: No.



Hugo Haas - W3C -

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 07:25:52 UTC