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

Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:16:14 -0700
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010701181610.A7329@mnot.net>

On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 08:58:06PM -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
> > 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.

Indeed; that's what I get for writing e-mail late at night.

The Abstract says it well enough;

  [The Infoset] provides a set of definitions for use in other
  specifications that need to refer to the information in an XML
  document.


> 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.

The syntax of XML messages is documented in the XML specification.
The Infoset gives a standard and more precise means of referring to
the syntactic constructs defined there, for use in other
specifications.

I fail to see why using well-thought-out terms to refer to the
documented syntax of an XML document is 'bad for implementors'.


-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2001 21:16:18 GMT

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