[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>>Since SOAP 1.2 is defined on the infoset, it presupposes that a parser
>>has done its work ... AFAIK, that doesn't imply an XML syntax
>>parser, just one that produces XML Infosets.
>On no. Not another one. You mean you can send something to a SOAP
>service that is not an XML document, provided the service knows how
>to turn it into an infoset? Yuck. I'm sure that loophole will do
>wonders for interoperability. Every day in every way I'm learning to
>despise the Infoset just a little bit more.
So how would *you* define something like SOAP? In BNF? Some specs
(SMIL was one I think) did this and then found that it wasn't quite
the same as XML. Using everyday terms like "element" and "attribute"?
The infoset is just a standard terminology for that. Using your own
data model like XPath? You could just as well say that XSLT doesn't
imply XML syntax, it can use anything that produces an XPath data
model...
-- Richard
|
