RE: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle

The fundamental question I am asking is why this should be part of the
envelope when the envelope doesn't say anything about encoding? In
addition, as we in general say nothing about the use of schema (or even
which schema language), or however data may or may not be described then
why should encoding be different?

FWIW, I believe I said "Nobody seems to change encoding style in the
middle of a graph" and not "nobody is able to change encodings in the
middle of a graph".

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Whitmer [mailto:rayw@netscape.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 14:26
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
Cc: Martin Gudgin; xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle


It is not true that "nobody is able to change encodings in the middle of
a graph".  The Mozilla implementation of SOAP 1.1 clearly supports this
-- I couldn't say it is well tested, but that goes for most features of
that implementation.  It is architected for that, and it was easy to see
how that type of encoding or decoding works.

In terms of architecture, our implementation both permits and honors
encoding style changes in the middle of a graph.  Furthermore, it seems
like it is important for modularity.  It seems likely that there are
things a particular encoding will not be able to deal with, that might
be borrowed from a different encoding, such as well-known parts, mime
edges, or edges that reference into other encodings.

I do not see the advantage in leaving it out, and while there area
number of things I might be inclined to toss, that was never one.

Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 18:16:19 UTC