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: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:38:06 -0400
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
Cc: mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF00BA8F61.0708E16E-ON85256A7D.0055D1CB@lotus.com>
Rich Salz writes:

>> In particular, the idea of "describe the
>> abstract data" and then "describe 
>> particular syntax in detail" scares
>> me.

Good, I think we have the right issues on the table now.  I think we both 
agree on what is possible and why, and now it's a question of whether the 
extra layer of abstraction clouds or clarifies the implementations that 
people will be building. 

For me, it is a little hard to reason about certain forms of compressed or 
otherwise optimized XML without reference to the Infoset.  It's quite 
reasonable in that case to assume that at no place in the implementation, 
from API (e.g. DOM) to bits on the wire, did the "<" exist.  For that 
reason, I think I find it more straightforward to reason about the 
Infoset.  I think I am reading you to say:  look, this Infoset stuff is 
very abstract when an implementor is trying to figure out what belongs on 
the wire, keep it simple and direct. 

If I have understood you correctly, I think those are two reasonable 
positions to have on the table for comparison.  Although I lean toward 
Infoset, I don't think the choice is entirely obvious.  The arguments 
against definitely include the ones you give.  Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 11:43:31 GMT

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