- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:39:47 +0200 (MEST)
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
In Part 1, section 4: << A SOAP binding specification: [..] * Describes how the services of the underlying protocol are used to transmit SOAP message infosets. >>> And then in 4.2: <<< The binding framework does not require that every binding use the XML 1.0 [XML 1.0] serialization as the "on the wire" representation of the XML infoset; compressed, encrypted, fragmented representations and so on can be used if appropriate. A binding, if using XML 1.0 serialization of the XML infoset, MAY mandate that a particular character encoding or set of encodings be used. >>> So it looks like the default is to provide XML 1.0 serialization and if something else is used, it has to be defined explicitely in the binding specification. In Part 2, the HTTP bindings does not define one single serialization scheme, but allow different ones that can be identified by the mime type used, but a conforming implementation MUST support application/soap+xml, which is now restricted to XML 1.0 serialization. In this case, the serialization scheme is not _explicitely_ stated but is implicitly part of the media type definition, we may perhaps addsome text in Part2 - 7.1.4 to state that the media type definition may have an impact on the XML version used in the serialization. I also noted that in section 5, part1, the definition of white space characters always refer to XML 1.0, should this be changed to only "XML" (or "the XML in which the infoset will be serialized in"?). Thanks, -- Yves Lafon - W3C "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 11:40:52 UTC