- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:28:40 -0400
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Rich Salz writes: > > like a good idea to me. Personally I don't find the XQuery Data Model > > spec overly complex, particularly when compared to PSVI which would be > > another alternative. > > One thing to consider is the amount of "extra reading" being put on the > SOAP user and development community. Less is better. :) Indeed, but to what conclusion does that lead us? I had some hope that you and others from the DSig community would find the DM approach attractive, in part because your own c14n [1] calls on readers to become familiar with the earlier version of the XPath data model. Though it does not appear urgent, I would have thought that the natural evolution would be to move c14n toward the XPath 2.0 model. So, what is "extra reading" depends a bit on what you were already reading. I can see this one either way. SOAP is Infoset. Schema is Infoset. Query is XPath 2.0/Query 1.0 DM, XML C14N is XPath 1.0 DM. I think we're getting near the point where all of these should come together. I do take the point that, typing issues aside, Infoset is clearly the most natural model in which to discuss SOAP, at least for the forseeable future. Thanks. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 17:30:01 UTC