Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> "Note that, because SOAP is Infoset based, in a situation where two nodes
> share a memory (run on the same processor or tightly coupled MP),
Why would the _world wide web_ consortium have anything to say one way
or another about a situation where two nodes share a memory? Talk about
scope creep! XML is defined in terms of its syntax and yet people work
with DOM's and infosets without XML in their programs. Nobody claims
they are doing anything non-standard because, after all, the XML
specification applies to data on the Web, not within a program.
Furthermore, I would argue that the entire SOAP spec does not reflect
the issue in real life that flexibility and interoperability can be in
competition. If someone wants to make a _standard_ for binary, in-memory
SOAP, then interoperability is possible. On the other hand, if SOAP
merely "leaves open the door", then interoperability will not occur.
Therefore, it would be better to shut the door and have someone else
open it _when_ they need the feature _and_ are willing to _standardize_
it so that it is actually interoperable.
Are you comfortable with the fact that Quake UDP packets can be
considered legal SOAP messages given a prose mapping from their internal
structure to the XML infoset?