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

Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:22:19 -0400
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF30BC9FC2.7B4A2CEF-ON85256A7D.005F3A85@raleigh.ibm.com >
Does this "pared-down" XML mean that "technically" the soap
message _might_ not be completely spec compliant anymore because
the device we're sending it to knows to expect this "pared-
down" version?  If so, can that device still say it is a SOAP

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>@w3.org on 07/02/2001 01:00:17 PM

Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org

To:   Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
cc:   xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4

I recall that one of the use cases we considered (don't remember if
it got through or not) would be use of 'pared-down' XML for use by
small devices (hope this won't start the debate over the meaning of
'devices' again ;)

It seems that using Infoset would enable this - those wishing to use
such a subset would define its relationship to the Infoset, and use
that simplified serialization instead.

On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:38:06AM -0400, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
> 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
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Nottingham
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 13:22:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:14 UTC