RE: The subsetting has begun
Thanks Rich. Why can't SOAP simply point to its Infoset-based specification to normatively denote what the allowable syntax productions will be for a SOAP document instance/aka, message? That is what they do, yes? Why do they need a syntax-subset on top of that since they do not validate what they bind? I didn't intend to start an infoset vs syntax war. Oh well... obviously that concerns folks, but as specs go, there seems to be a disconnect here between what SOAP specifies and the means of it, and what it needs. If I understand you, they want to cite a subset for binding instead of simply denoting via the mapping of their information items which parts of XML they can accept usefully, and by that, tightly couple back to their infoset implementation. Ok within their application, but it makes very little sense in terms of the overall XML specification family to force that tight coupling back out to the generalized XML processor. If the "subsetting has begun", then it has begun awkwardly and without much thought with regards to the environment. len -----Original Message----- From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@d...] > If the SOAP specification is built on the infoset, > is a syntax-subset necessary? The SOAP processing model (i.e., what you do with a message, what its semantics are, etc) is described in terms of the XML Infoset. The only defined binding of a SOAP message is XML over HTTP. There are other sample bindings, but they all do XML over other transports. So yes, even the SOAP WG recognizes that XML is necessary for interop. /r$
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format