- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 01:12:29 +0100 (CET)
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Mark, I don't think this is a good idea. First, there can be more than one encoding in the message on different pieces of data, even inside the Body. Which would you indicate? Anyway, it seems if we sum everybody's wishes, we'll find out that almost everything from the message is important to be known without cracking the envelope. Excuse my outburst, but THIS IS XML, LET'S GET OVER IT! If we put everything from the envelope to the outside, too, why need the envelope? 8-) OK, the namespace of the root element might be useful for fast dispatch, in case of SOAP the "intent" of the message can be also useful for that purpose, also I'm nervous about that, but the encodingStyle is not a thing the server dispatches on. Therefore, I say it's not a good idea. Best regards, Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) http://www.systinet.com/ On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Mark Baker wrote: > While writing the interoperability section of the media type, I > realized that there may be a need for an additional optional parameter > on the SOAP media type for specifying the encoding style[1]. > > The reason I think it would be useful is that it would help a > receiving processor know whether or not they could process the message > without breaking into the body, as with action/SOAPAction. > > Usage; > > Content-Type; application/soap+xml; encoding="http://.." > > Issues; > - good idea or not? > - name? "encoding"? "encodingstyle"? "encstyle"? "soapenc"? > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapencattr > > MB >
Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 19:12:31 UTC