- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:34:42 -0500
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: Herve Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, "'XMLP Dist App'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Yves Lafon writes:
>> as allowing XML 1.0, 1.1 and different encoding
>> is already a source of interoperability for
>> perfectly valid SOAP infosets.
I guess I see this as a much smaller concern. RFC 3023 basically defers
to the XML Recommendation(s), and XML 1.0 says [1]
"All XML processors MUST be able to read entities in both the UTF-8 and
UTF-16 encodings."
...both of which are encodings that are capable of conveying the full
range of characters allowed by the {char} production. While it's true
that one can attempt to send encodings that either (a) would not be
universally understood or (b) don't convey the full range of {char}, I
think it's fair to say that our existing recommendations taken together
provide fairly clear guidance on how to avoid such interoperability
concerns: send UTF-8 or UTF-16 and every legal Infoset will faithfully
transmitted to a receiver that MUST be capable of parsing it. I suppose
we could add a note reiterating the use of other encodings may break
interop.
I see the XML 1.1 infoset question as much deeper for the reasons already
stated: introduce a fully conforming SOAP 1.2 intermediary (coded a few
months ago to the then-current recommendations) into a path where you're
sending XML 1.1 content and your envelope will not get to or past the
intermediary.
So, I guess I'm still not convinced that the encoding example is in
practice an indication that we have much of a precedent for lack of
ability to guarantee interop. It's true that we have allowed cooperating
nodes to use things like alternate MIME types, but we have also so far
always provided a lingua franca that reasonable implementors will assume
is capable of successfully transmitting any legal SOAP envelope. I think
the question is whether this should remain true, or whether the benefits
of allowing optional use of XML 1.1 outweigh the loss of interop.
Noah
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#charencoding
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 19:52:48 UTC