RE: Potential new SOAP Issue
"Don Box" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7C5CC590304B6E41AE2A0E97D54DDF5601EB81EE@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> |
Is there an Infoset 1.1? Are there plans for such a beast? I hope the answer is no on both fronts. DB > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 1:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Potential new SOAP Issue > > > > > > > Now that XML 1.1 is a recommendation, and allows characters not allowed in > XML 1.0, it seems to me we need a review of our entire recommendation, as > well as XOP and MTOM drafts, to make sure we are clear on issues such as: > > Are the new control characters allowed by XML 1.1 allowed in XML SOAP > Envelope infosets? If so, do you indicate this in the version of the > Infoset Document Information item? > If allowed, I don't see how the HTTP binding would send them using the > usual RFC 3203-based serialization, which my quick reading shows as XML > 1.0. > We refer in the rec to XML 1.0 whitespace, but XML 1.1 allows NEL (x85) > as whitespace. Are we at least clear as to what is whitespace and what > isn't for SOAP? > Is it legal to write a new binding or media type that sends the new > control chars, perhaps using XML 1.1 serialization? This would seem to > break the equivalence among bindings. > We should similarly make sure XOP and MTOM are clear on these issues. > > > -------------------------------------- > Noah Mendelsohn > IBM Corporation > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > 1-617-693-4036 > -------------------------------------- > > >