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

Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 21:37:21 -0400
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
Cc: mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3BE2E024.2EA22B88-ON85256A7D.000940B1@lotus.com>
Rich:  you are right, to be effective a protocol specification must state 
precisely and concretely what is to go on the wire.  I think the point 
some of us are making, and that you might be missing (or may disagree 
with), is that the infoset can be used to capture what is common across an 
extensible set of SOAP bindings, each of which must separately meet that 
goal of concreteness. 

So indeed, an HTTP binding must tell you exactly, "<" and all, what is on 
the wire.  On the other hand, a different binding to SMTP might use a 
different set of rules for the bits on the wire.  Now, consider a binding 
that uses compression to achieve speedup on some limited bandwidth 
transport.  It probably won't have "<" visible on the wire at all.  We 
could require that all such encodings were in fact compressions of the "<" 
representation of the XML, but why do that?  Why shouldn't that 
compressing binding be free to use any technique it likes of reproducing 
at the far end the elements and attributes of the envelope?  Maybe it 
creates a symbol table of element names, sends that first, and then uses 
code numbers.  That's the reason that some of us want to use the infoset: 
it captures what is common across all bindings, without extraneous 
reference to well-formed syntax.  As you make very clear, each binding 
must tell you exactly what will be found on the wire, and will definitely 
be at the "<" level if well-formed XML documents are chosen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2001 21:42:44 GMT

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