W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2000

RE: ebXML Abandons SOAP

From: Jack, Adam <AJack@neonsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:02:54 -0600
Message-ID: <A7722E58BBE8D311B46C0090273AD8D4EF20FB@DNEXCHANGE2>
To: Kurt Cagle <cagle@olywa.net>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
	XML is adequate for containing XML, although namespaces can get to
be
	something of a pain. XML is even pretty good at containing non-XML
	information, such as MIME encodings, which is the whole reason
behind 	
	the CDATA section in the first place (though I personally would like

	to see a mechanism within XML that would allow you to specify the

	enclosing delimiters of a CDATA section).

I don't want to start a food fight either, but I disagree with this
statement. Putting a generic XML payload inside XML can't work with
validation, CDATA can't nest CDATA, and no tag/delimited mechanism is viable
for generic binary data, however one specifies the enclosing delimiter.

For now I am just going to base64 encode my SOAP payload, but I'd like not
have to. It isn't as if XML were already compact... ;-)

	SOAP is, for all that it is pushed as a messaging mechanism, is

	essentially a way of performing RPCs, 

Agreed, so back to "ought SOAP be used for simple XML document passing?"

regards,

Adam
Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 17:07:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT