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

Re: Article: "The horror of XML"

• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:40:37 +0000
• Cc: Mike Champion <mc@x...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <NHVQ984153B6ZUB051IGIG62A8ZVTRVU.3dc016bf@MChamp> <p04330101b9e5cc09fe9d@[192.168.254.4]>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> 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?  

I thought this was common knowledge. If it's not, that would explain 
why they're wasn't much outrage about it here (or did I miss it?)

> Yuck. I'm sure that loophole will do wonders 
> for interoperability. 

To my knowledge it's not a loophole. Sending and receiving infosets 
was designed into SOAP 1.2 explicitly. XML 1.0 As We Know It is 
somewhat incidental to SOAP.


Every day in every way I'm learning to despise the
> Infoset just a little bit more.

It's not the Infoset's fault that people specify it.

Bill de hÓra
-- 

Propylon
www.propylon.com

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

• References:
  • Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • 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