- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:27 -0700
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I took an action to draft a response to issue 501[1] in our CR issues list. Here is that response: Points 1-3: Yes, when using the resource representation header base64 is always a requirement, even for textual types. The SOAP envelope itself will always be in a single character encoding. The octet stream resulting from decoding some base64 text may well be in a different character encoding. This is not an issue. The character encoding in use for such data may be determined in a number of ways, including, but not limited to; specifying the charset as part of the xmime:contentType attribute (e.g. text/xml; charset=iso-8859-1 ), examining the XML declaration for XML based types (e.g. <?xml version='1.0' encoding='iso-8859-1' ?>, using the algorithm defined in Appendix F of the XML 1.0 Recommendation for XML based types, assuming a default character encoding defined by the specification of the media type. Point 4: xml:lang is not appropriate for use on the rep:Data element as base64 is not human-readable text. A SOAP message can carry multiple instances of the resource representation header and many such headers may carry representations of the same resource. Thus a given SOAP message could carry multiple representations of a given resource, each one in a different human readable language. The resource representation header allows additional attributes to be specified. Such an attribute could be defined to indicate the human readable language of a text based resource. Regards Gudge [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x501
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2004 00:48:33 UTC