- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:12:18 -0400
- To: francis@redrice.com
- Cc: andrewl@microsoft.com, hutch@xampl.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Francis Norton writes: >> But I'd like to suggest that we can satisfy both >> requirements more simply by standardizing on >> the XPath 1.0 data model. Isn't that exactly the need that's met by the use of XML Infoset to model messages at a local node in the latest specification? See [1]. I think it's fair to say that W3C is moving toward infoset as opposed to the XPath data model as the generic abstract model for XML...or more to the point, they will come together as necessary. So, I think we've done what you're suggesting. The Infoset does not currently provide a model for DTDs (or schemas); though there is such an abstraction for schemas in the schemas spec, SOAP does not use it. Still, as has been pointed out, a given transport binding either will or won't allow DTDs in the XML serialization on the wire. I can assure you, having built implementations both ways, that requiring the receiver to parse and apply entity definitions from a DTD will cost you something in a high performance implementation. So, as I've said to often now, I think we should not in general allow DTD's in abstract SOAP messages, and should not use them in the wire formats for any transport bindings offered by the protocol workgroup itself. This is an important topic, but I'm beginning to feel that we've gotten the essential points on the table for the workgroup to consider. Should we wind down the email thread for now? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapenv ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 18:21:02 UTC