Lists Home |
Date Index |
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 12:28 PM -0500 10/30/02, Mike Champion wrote:
>> 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.
The interoperability problem here isn't as tough as it sounds: if you
don't know that the other side(s) understands your alternate
representation, you don't use it. In many current SOAP scenarii it's
easy to get both sides to agree. Also, from the work that I'm seeing
around WSDL 1.2 I have good hope that there will be the right type of
metadata to describe the serialization that is being used. After all,
it's just the exact same interoperability problem that people wishing to
use gzip compression in Web Services encounter.
Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488