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

Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:08:51 +0200
Message-ID: <3B4C6C03.180C0679@crf.canon.fr>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Would a mixed Infoset/examples spec better match your expectations? e.g.
section 4:

     The document Element Information Item has:
                   A local name of Envelope
                   A namespace name of
                   Zero or more namespace qualified Attribute
     Information Items
                   One or more Element Information Item children in
     order as follows;
                     1.An optional Header Element Information Item as
     described below
                     2.A mandatory Body Element Information Item as
     described below
                     3.Any number of namespace qualified Element
     Information Items with any local name.



Rich Salz wrote:

> I'm an implementor -- I've done implementations of ports 80, 88, 119,
> and 135 among others. :)  So I don't say this lightly:  rewriting the
> SOAP spec to be based on the Infoset *would be a big loss for
> implementors.*
> Network protocols are not built on top of abstract "information unit"
> descriptions. They are best built by from a document that describes both
> bits on the wire -- the syntax -- and the meaning of those bits -- the
> semantics.  An infoset approach loses the first and, for many
> implementors, obscures the second in a layer of abstraction.
> If there are parties that must have this information, then make it an
> appendix, possibly normative.
>         /r$
> --
> Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
> Encryption)
> http://www.zolera.com
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 11:09:05 UTC

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