- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:28:00 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Mark, I've pointed this out earlier; see [1]. Arthur, there's also the issue that XML Schema is (today) XML 1.0 only; also see [1]. JJ. [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0011.html> Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Note that the XMLP WG is just finalising its decision for this issue > as it impacts SOAP 1.2; it would be good if the approaches were > co-ordinated (apologies if this was already well-known). > > > On May 12, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > >> >> This note completes my action item of 2004-04-29. >> >> The WSDL 2.0 spec is written in terms of the XML Infoset. The Infoset >> spec was recently revised [1] to cover XML 1.1. There are at least >> two changes in XML 1.1 that affect the Infoset: >> >> 1. The set of legal values for character data has increased. However, >> on closer reading of the Infoset spec, it defines a character code as >> any number in the ISO 10646 range of 0 to #x10FFFF, even though not >> all of these are legal XML codes. So in this case there is no problem >> since the Infoset spec is general enough to describe even documents >> that are not well-formed XML 1.1, i.e. that contain illegal character >> codes. >> >> 2. The set of legal values for characters that may appear in element >> names, attributes names, enumerated attribute values, targets of >> processing instructions, etc., has increased. The Infoset spec >> doesn't define these, instead saying that it takes whatever an XML >> parser hands it. >> >> There are also changes to Namespaces that are reflected in the new >> Infoset spec. >> >> My conclusion is that the Infoset spec is loose in the sense that it >> doesn't nail down every aspect of an Infoset. That is fine for the >> Infoset spec, but I do NOT think it is fine for WSDL 2.0, since in >> practice systems will be interchanging concrete documents using XML >> 1.0 or XML 1.1. If we are not clear on this, then we will probably >> hit interoperability problems when XML 1.1 gets adopted. >> >> I think there are two extreme approaches and probably some >> intermediate cases. >> >> Case 1. We state that WSDL 2.0 MUST use XML 1.0 only. This means >> WSDL 2.0 documents MUST use XML 1.0 and that any imported or included >> document MUST also use XML 1.0. >> >> Case 2. We state that WSDL 2.0 MAY use either XML 1.0 or XML 1.1 and >> that conformant processors MUST support both, and any combination of >> versions for all imported or included documents. >> >> Case 1 has the advantage of simplicity and ease of implementation. >> However, it denies the benefits of XML 1.1 which may be significant >> to some users. For example, ease of authoring on IBM-compatible >> mainframes (NEL), and the flexibility to use more international >> characters in names. >> >> Case 2 has the disadvantage that it is harder to implement since >> there are not a lot of XML 1.1 parsers in production yet. It has the >> benefit of making the features of XML 1.1 available. >> >> I suspect that even if we adopt Case 2 that WS-I will issue a Profile >> that specifies Case 1. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/ >> >> Arthur Ryman, >> Rational Desktop Tools Development >> >> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 >> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 >> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 >> mobile: +1-416-939-5063 >> intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ > > > -- > Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist > Office of the CTO BEA Systems >
Received on Friday, 14 May 2004 09:29:14 UTC