[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working Group Draft
Dan, UDDI implementation uses an XML processor, which must conform to the XML specification, but UDDI itself is not an XML processor. I don't think the current UDDI specification is illegal, though it uses only UTF-8. -- Keisuke Kibakura >>>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:44:32 +0400, >>>>> Daniel Feygin <feygin@unitspace.com> wrote : > Working group draft states: > All XML Processors must support UTF-8 and UTF-16, per the XML 1.0 > specification. > > According to this statement, UTF-16 support is mandated by XML 1.0. If > that is correct, then we cannot claim that UDDI Web Service is a true > XML Web Service - it is a service supporting only a subset of XML > expressed in UTF-8. > > This certainly implies that some errata is required to correct the > problem - the question is whether we amend the specifications to clearly > indicate that UDDI is not in compliance with XML 1.0 (and therefore with > WS-I Basic Profile) or whether we become XML-compliant with respect to > the UTF-16 issue. > > Daniel Feygin > UnitSpace > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com] > > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 7:11 PM > > To: 'uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org' > > Subject: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working Group Draft > > > > > > Here is the link to the WS-I Basic Profile that was recently > > made public: > > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2002-10/BasicProfile-1.0-WGD.htm. > > As for the character encoding issue we already discusses, the > > requirement to support both UTF-8 and UTF-16 is listed as > > "R1012" in section 4.1. Section 3.2 defines conformance > > (against the profile) of Web services in general. > > > > Claus
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC