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
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.