[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Article: "The horror of XML"

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:44:36 -0500
• In-reply-to: <p04330101b9e5cc09fe9d@[192.168.254.4]>

10/30/2002 12:57:21 PM, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...> wrote:


>Yes, so a SOAP engine needs an XML parser that will detect and report 
>the presence of a document type declaration so it can respond with 
>the appropriate fault. It cannot use a processor that simply ignores 
>the document type declaration,

No disagreement.  I thought the issue was over strict conformance to
specs; you can't conform to SOAP if you accept everything XML defines
as legal. Clearly an XML processor is a BIG help in building a 
SOAP processor.

>
>On no. Not another one. You mean you can send something to a SOAP 
>service that is not an XML document, provided the service knows how 
>to turn it into an infoset?  

As someone pointed out, it's in the spec, but not in any known toolkits.

The use case for this is exactly what the "horror of XML" article hints
at -- compression, encryption, etc. Better to anchor interop in some specs
rather than encouraging the HTML-ish liberality and bug-for-bug 
compatibility.  Whether or not the W3C Infoset spec is up to this 
job is another matter, but the IDEA of anchoring SOAP on the "infoset"
rather than syntax seems sound to me.

• References:
  • Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Next by Date: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Previous by thread: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Next by thread: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread