- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:15:47 -0700
- To: "Ray Whitmer" <rayw@netscape.com>
- Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
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