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

[Bob Atkinson <bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com>]

I can only reply that clearly there are different points of view on this
issue. The one close to me in the quarters in which I reside is that if
it hasn't been tested, it doesn't work: the fact that one may build on a
lower layer that purports to hide from one certain details may do well
to increase the likelihood that things function correctly, but does not
relieve one of the obligation of actually verifying that one's use of
that layer does not tickle some previously hidden errant functionality.

	Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feygin [mailto:feygin@unitspace.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:07 AM
To: Bob Atkinson; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Keisuke Kibakura'
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working Group Draft

Bob,

I do not see how there is any impact on UDDI testing.  All SOAP
processors must support UTF-16 by implication that all XML processors
are required to support UTF-16 and SOAP is an XML protocol.  By
interoperability testing your SOAP processors you are testing that all
Web services and clients using them are interoperable.

There can only be an interoperability testing issue if some UDDI
registry implementation provides its own SOAP processor.  I am not aware
of any such implementations and find them to be somewhat unlikely.

Anne Thomas Manes confirmed during the teleconference that this was a
non-issue for Systinet, which has both a UDDI registry product and a
SOAP implementation.  I am sure that if you research other existing
implementations you will find that it is similarly a non-issue for them,
since encoding support is delegated down to the XML processor and each
compliant XML processor is required to support both UTF-8 and UTF-16.

Regards,
Daniel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Atkinson [mailto:bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:11 AM
> To: Daniel Feygin; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Keisuke Kibakura
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working 
> Group Draft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Feygin [mailto:feygin@unitspace.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:59 AM
> To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: 'Keisuke Kibakura'
> Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Basic Profile Version 1.0 - Working 
> Group Draft
> 
> Keisuke,
> 
> It appears that there is no rationale behind UDDI 
> specifications' restriction on messages being expressed in UTF-8, 
> 
> [rga] 
> I disagree with that perspective: one important rationale is 
> the reduction by a factor of four of the amount of 
> node-to-node testing that must occur.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>