Re: Position on issue 194

I feel the discussion has not been sufficient on the merits of the 
attribute.

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Hi all, since I won't be able to attend the following two 
>telcons, I'd like to state my position on one of the remaining 
>two issues - 194 - encodingStyle attribute on Envelope, Header.
> I believe that the attribute has no meaning on Envelope and 
>Header and that using it there is wrong (although I recognize 
>it's currently being used in this way).
>
I disagree with this position, as I have stated before.  The attribute 
has a meaning on envelope, header, and body, in each case specifying the 
default encoding of blocks contained within.

The meaning on headers is the same as the meaning on blocks within body. 
 They are all blocks, and it is unclear why it would not be so.

We actively use it this way in SOAP 1.1, and feel that the specification 
calls for it to be used this way.

>I think the spec needs to be changed at least to remove the 
>inconsistency between prose and schema.
> There has been a proposal by Henrik [1] to remove the attribute 
>altogether and I support this course because encodingStyle is not 
>widely employed (it's mentioned in messages and it may be checked 
>for, but it's not widely used to do meaningful stuff), it is 
>underspecified (What is a data encoding anyway? What can it do to 
>the message? What is the meaning of changing encodingStyle in the 
>middle of the XML tree? Where does encodingStyle apply?) and at 
>least in some implementations (including Systinet's WASP) it 
>isn't necessary for proper functioning.
> We have already reduced the attribute from being a list of URIs
>to a single URI for some similar reasons (see issues 159 [2] and
>166 [3]).
> Best regards,
>
There would be a hole if the 1.2 specification were modified as proposed.

Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 12:56:41 UTC