Lists Home |
Date Index |
thanks for the reply
Consider a typical SOAP envlope below:
<?xml version='1.0' ?>
What would the XML Infoset of the above SOAP Envelope look like??
What would we achieve representing this as a XML Infoset?
Quoting from SOAP 1.2, Part 1, Section 4.2 -
As described in 5. SOAP Message Construct, each SOAP message is modeled as an XML Infoset that consists of a document information item with exactly one child: the envelope element information item. Therefore, the minimum responsibility of a binding in transmitting a message is to specify the means by which the SOAP XML Infoset is transferred to and reconstituted by the binding at the receiving SOAP node and to specify the manner in which the transmission of the envelope is effected using the facilities of the underlying protocol.
Does this mean that SOAP XML Infoset can contain *some thing extra* in addition to SOAP Envelope?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 6:16 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML Infosets and SOAP 1.2
> 7/22/2002 6:20:30 AM, "Naresh Agarwal"
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >What are XML Infosets and what are they used for?
> "XML infosets" are the tree-like data structures built by an
> XML parser for an
> application or tool that operates on a complete document
> representation, such as a
> browser, editor, DOM/JDOM utility, etc. The W3C InfoSet spec
> is a description of what a
> parser produces, designed to abstract away the insignificant
> details of XML syntax, such
> as whether an attribute value is delimited with single quotes
> or double quotes. This
> required some somewhat controversial decisions on what is
> "insignificant". Thus
> <empty x="y"></empty>
> is identical in the infoset to
> <empty x="y" />
> <foo> bar <![CDATA[ baz ]]> quux </foo>
> is eqivalent to
> <foo> bar baz quux </foo>
> The W3C InfoSet spec is intended for spec writers rather than
> end users, and as I
> understand it adopting the InfoSet terminology made it easier
> to rigorously define SOAP
> 1.2 without having to specify what is signficiant and
> insignificant, clearly aligning it
> with XML. (This is a particular problem for SOAP, since as
> loyal XML-DEV readers know,
> it uses a subset of XML syntax so it can't be simply
> specified with a schema).
> > Does it mean that SOAP envelope, *potentially*, can be
> serialized using something
> other than XML?
> Hmm, if the bit in the namespace spec about namespace URIs
> not necessarily being
> dereferenceable is the equivalent of the Second Amendment,
> this may be the equivalent of
> the First Amendment. Different people will have strong,
> defensible, and utterly
> incompatible views on the subject. (Think of the disputes
> over the alleged right of
> Nazis to hold demonstrations, or pornographers to publish!).
> Anyway, some will probably believe that non-XML
> serializations of SOAP messages are the
> first step down the slippery slope back to proprietary binary
> formats, and others will
> see it as the way to solve some of XML syntax's more annoying
> problems for web services
> (e.g., it's verbosity, its incompatibility with URL syntax,
> etc.). For obvious reasons,
> most players are being a bit coy about their true feelings ...
> But yes, it means (IMHO, not wearing my W3C WSA or my
> Software AG hats, flame me not
> them!!!) that *potentially* SOAP messages can be serialized
> using something other than
> angle brackets.
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>