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

Re: literal XML encoding?

From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:30:13 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010524132341.025e0768@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
To: francis@redrice.com, "Marc J. Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
At 04:50 PM 5/24/2001 +0100, Francis Norton wrote:
[snip]

> > See section 4.1.1 of the SOAP/1.1 specification.
> >
>
>Why does it need encoding at all? What could be more natural than
>embedding a well-formed XML fragment in an XML message structure?

SOAP is pretty close to a formalized approach to "natural" XML.
If you design XML fragment with element content (not attributes)
and reserve attributes for meta-information like namespace definitions
and pointers (hrefs), you'll end up with something quite like SOAP's
encoding.  I suggest it would be a good practice to adopt it even
for hand-hewn message formats.

>And if it does need encoding, why is there no standard way of specifying
>this?

? Perhaps you are misinterpreting "encoding".  SOAP encodes a data structure
into XML.  It is a proposal for a standard way. The XML itself is not 
"encoded":
you can read it if you want to.

John.

______________________________________________________
John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm
MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 16:29:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT