Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle

 Henrik,
 I wouldn't expect something like this from you, it's like your
child, you know... 8-)
 Now seriously, I like this proposal.
 In the binary world we have MIME types. A processor may
expect and handle one type or it may be able to correctly process
multiple types or it may work with any type (for example storing
the data somewhere for possible subsequent processing).
 In the XML subworld we have namespaces. Same situation.
 Moreover, we don't (and cannot) mandate that data serialized 
according to the SOAP Encoding rules must be identified as such 
in order to be processed as such, so the identification cannot be 
relied on.
 Also, as far as I can see, in the "real world" there is an
apparent shift from using data encodings to using plain ol' XML,
in the WSDL terms from encoded to literal use of XML Schema
schemata.
 On the other hand, in some cases, SOAP Encoding in its fullness 
(practically indescribable with XML Schema literally) is very 
helpful, but my position still is that this is WSDL's problem, 
not ours. And anyway, encodingStyle attribute in SOAP is not 
necessary even for the current "encoded" use in WSDL.
 I'm wondering whether this will be able to go through, though.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

 > 
 > Following up on Gudge's proposal [2] and on at least one previous thread
 > [3] I am wondering whether an alternative solution is to entirely drop
 > the encodingStyle attribute. The reason why this may not be such a
 > strange thought is that:
 > 
 > A) Nobody seems to change encoding style in the middle of a graph
 > 
 > B) Given the confusion of where to put it in SOAP/1.1, nobody seem to
 > rely on the information but seem to get along fine without it
 > 
 > It also seems somewhat strange that the attribute is defined as part of
 > the envelope given that we don't say anything about encodings in part 1.
 > 
 > Any reason for keeping it? Comments? Flames?
 > 
 > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
 > mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
 > 
 > >At the last telcon I took an action item to summarize the two 
 > >perspectives
 > >on issue 194[1].
 > 
 > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x194
 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0150.html
 > [3]
 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/thread.html#171
 >

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 17:11:33 UTC