OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply to attributes?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
  • To: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 11:33:56 -0400

Andrew Layman wrote:
> Perhaps I misunderstand Jonathan Borden's comments, when he writes
>   I've designed XMOP ... to
>   serialize objects. This format is similar to SOAP, but focusses on
>   serialization of the entire object rather than making a single
> method call
>   or property get/set.
> SOAP section five specifically provides serialization rules for entire
> objects or graphs of objects. Its use is not limited to method
> calls but is
> a general facility for serialization.
	The use of the term "focus" was intended to mean that, and from what I have
read in the spec SOAP has, at least in the past, focussed on XML RPC
(perhaps this has changed). Indeed if object persistence was an important
goal of SOAP, one might expect the specification to provide a standard
serialization format to represent at least COM and Java objects (to start).
XMOP started life as a COM component that provided XML MBV services to COM
components and this predates SOAP, so forgive me if I haven't kept up to the
minute as SOAP morphs itself into new territory.

	I would like to think that XML itself provides for a general facility for
serialization of graphs, no? In terms of serialization itself, given
XML,XLink,XPointer,XML Schema, DTDs, general entities and layer RDF on top,
what does SOAP provide *in terms of serialization* not already covered by
core W3C specs?

Jonathan Borden


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS