- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:57:18 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek: I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but I want to make sure that I understand your proposal. The believe that what you're saying is: "SOAP already requires that you understand the correct interpretation of any header or body block that you process. If you understand that, then you will surely know whether the block is to be interpreted as encoded, and if so how." If I have correctly understood you, then I think the proposal stacks up this way: Advantages of scrapping encodingStyle: * Oe less mechanism to describe, implement, and test * The semantics were not clear, and there were a number of edge conditions. By leaving out the mechanism, we avoid the need to worry about any of that. Disadvantages: * With SOAP 1.1 is possible to write generalized middleware that decodes graphs without knowing anything about the QNames or definitions of particular header and body elements. With your proposal, it would be necessary to make each implementation aware (one way or another) of which things were to be encoded, and which not. The messages become somewhat less self describing. * We lose a level of cross checking. I can see it either way. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 16:14:32 UTC