- 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