W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2002

RE: Closing XML Protocol Last Call issue 395

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:46:00 -0800
Message-ID: <68B95AA1648D1840AB0083CC63E57AD6097C68DC@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I didn't mean to make any general characterization of possible infosets.
My focus was merely the serialization of a SOAP message infoset defined
by "application/soap+xml", which IMO, doesn't include items not present
in the SOAP message.

I think the discomfort I have with introducing text to the effect
indicated below is that it gives the impression that there is inherent
flexibility in the serialization which I don't think there is, but as I
said, maybe I am missing something.

>So, you're implying that there is no infoset that serializes 
>as having, for example, an element declaration?  No way to 
>say:  this attribute is of type ID?  That stuff just can't be 
>inferred from the infoset, so you always need additional 
>information to decide to serialize such things.  I don't think 
>that's how I would have built Infoset, but I suppose it's a 
>plausible conclusion.   If everyone else agrees, I can live 
>with it.  I 
>remain nervous that at best we're missing an opportunity to 
>make crystal clear something that now needs quite careful 
>reading,  Still, if nobody else shares my concern, let's drop 
>it.  Thanks.

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 19:46:47 UTC

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