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

RE: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services

• To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@f...>,"Mike Champion" <mc@x...>
• Subject: RE: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 08:04:03 -0800
• Cc: <elharo@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcLK0gHnI2HTljQyQ8SduN7DJCN5DwAAensx
• Thread-topic: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services

I assume Mike is talking about the fact that it is not possible to embed one well-formed document in another and still be conformant XML if the embedded document contains a prolog. One can resort to hacks to get around this (PIs or CDATA sections) but I assume some would rather have a "blessed" way of achieving this. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...] 
	Sent: Sun 2/2/2003 7:10 AM 
	To: Mike Champion 
	Cc: elharo@m...; xml-dev@l... 
	Subject: Re:  Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services 
	
	

	
	> XML 1.x is not
	> composable as specified, which makes the full spec unusable for a header-
	> extension model such as SOAP offers, and so on. (See the response by the
	> XMLP WG to this issue on www-tag a month ago for details).
	
	No.  I'm not interested in seeing what the XMLP WG says in some formal round
	of mumbo-jumbo.  If you want to put forth such a vacuous accusations as "XML
	1.x is not composable as specified", please justify it here in language that
	proves it is not just a case of character assassination by quiddity.
	
	

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Next by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Previous by thread: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Next by thread: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread