RE: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working Group Draft

[Keisuke Kibakura <kibakura@jp.fujitsu.com>]

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