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

Re: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Subject: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:41:54 +0100
• Cc: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <417FC59B.5040205@d...>
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <417F8F4A.3000407@p...> <417F9905.3080400@m...> <417F9BAD.5060503@p...> <417FA999.4070608@m...> <417FADF5.7090001@p...> <417FC59B.5040205@d...>
• Reply-to: sean.mcgrath@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)

Rich Salz wrote:

>> XML canonicalisation. In particular, I want to avoid the complexities 
>> that result from combining  XML 1.0  canonicalisation with namespaces 
>> (e.g. Exclusive XML canonicalization :-)
>
>
> Once you done the work of C14N, exc-c14n isn't that much more. :)
>
> Less flippantly, I took a look at RIG2 and skimmed RIG3.  It seems 
> like the combination of limitations on xmlns (not at the docroot, no 
> bleed-thru, no use of alternate prefixes, etc) means that you're 
> essentially outlawing the ability to use a layered SOAP 
> implementation.  Was that the intent?

I'm not sure I follow. I should point out that RIG100 specifies a 
business level envelope in which all messages are encapsulated. 
Particular transports - such as SOAP - can add their own transport-level 
enveloping as required. Thus SOAP enveloping is something that happens 
outside of, rather than inside of, RIG 2 compliant messages. In fact, I 
expect that most, if not all transport adapters for the SOA as specified 
will elect to hive off the RIG 2 compliant payload as an attachment. 
This is fine because the transport adapter is the outer most layer of 
the SOA onion and is peeled prior to content-based routing, 
interventionist proxying etc.

>
> Also requirement 25 in RIG2 (no superfluous declarations) seems 
> redundant since RIG2 already mandates RIG3.

Thanks. I'll look into that.

Sean

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by Date: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Previous by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread