W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 20:58:10 -0400
Message-ID: <3B3FC722.3542E5A7@zolera.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> If i interpret the intent of the infoset correctly, it is a
> definitive description of the XML syntax, so that one may describe
> XML without delving into the details of that syntax.

You must have made a typo and meant a different word for the first time
you used syntax (in the second line).  Otherwise, sorry, but I can't
make any sense *at all* of what this might mean.

> Rather, it should use the
> framework that has been provided - Infoset - to express how to use
> it.

I disagree, for the reasons listed in my original note.

I'll re-emphasize that the Infoset is completely devoid of syntax -- the
first appearance of "<" is in the non-normative appendix C.  As the very
first line of the Infoset CR says, "it defines an abstract data set." 
But if you're defining a network protocol, then you MUST define syntax;.
You must MAKE EXPLICIT the bits on the wire.

> Otherwise, to use the most simple example, if we define an attribute
> as
> 
>   <foo soap:mustUnderstand="bar">
> 
> is an implementation to assume that
> 
>   <foo soap:mustUnderstand='bar'>
> 
> is illegal?

Oh, nonsense.

The XML spec makes it clear.

Actually, your example should help make it clear why -- for a network
protocol -- the Infoset is a lose: it doesn't answer that question.  It
doesn't even come close.

	/r$
-- 
Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
Encryption)
http://www.zolera.com
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2001 20:57:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:02 GMT