RE: Issue with encodingStyle

Hello,

What is your opinion of the proposal to change:

..."SHOULD indicate their encoding style using the encodingStyle 
attribute"

to 

..."MUST indicate their encoding style using the encodingStyle 
attribute"

It doesn't seem like an undue burden on the originator. I can't see 
why one wouldn't want to use the mechanism provided by SOAP 
for this purpose. 

Thanks,

RC

> I think the answer to the original question is (b):  the originator is 
> choosing not to use SOAP mechanisms tell you anything about the encoding 
> of the message.  The receiver may or may have more application-specific 
> ways of interpreting the structure of the message, e.g. you might 
> recognize the QName of the element, but you have chosen not to use the 
> mechanism that would give a generalized SOAP processor a start. Therefore, 
> such a processor is likley to treat the data as XML.
> 
> >> Specifically, how to explicitly mark an element as literal XML.
> 
> I think that in some sense, all SOAP messages including encoded are 
> literal XML.  If you mean to say specifically that you intend the data to 
> be modeled per XML schema, or some other convention, then you can invent 
> an encoding URI to convey that.  Setting encodingStyle doesn't mean you've 
> mangled the data, just that you've documented its representation.  I'm not 
> sure I see the need to create an explicit literal XML URI as part of the 
> SOAP spec, as I'm not sure what it would convey that's different from 
> specifying no encoding.  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 19:21:29 UTC