Hi Chris. For interoperability. In particular, if any version of XML is allowed, it's possible to have a message that contains characters that are impossible to re-serialize into a lower version of XML; as a result, intermediaries in particular, may be in a difficult situation. We expect that other versions of XML would be accommodated by other media types; there is nothing in SOAP itself that constrains the version of XML. The related errata issues (rec20[1] and rec22[2]) against SOAP 1.2 were resolved last week, but unfortunately the result isn't reflected in their summaries, and the meeting minutes are not yet available. This information should be available very soon. Regards, 1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x20 2. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x22 On Apr 30, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Chris Lilley wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2004, 12:09:31 AM, Mark wrote:
MN> The only substantive change in this draft is the restriction of the MN> content to XML 1.0 (i.e., XML 1.1 SOAP envelopes cannot be identified MN> by this media type).
MN> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-soap-media-reg-05.txt
What motivates this change? Why exclude XML 1.1?
-- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
-- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems