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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] The privilege of XML parsing - Data types, binary XML and

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

David Fallside just posted the rationale for the SOAP decisions 
to subset XML.   Note that SOAP is an infoset specification.

"XMLP WG Response on "SOAP and the Internal Subset""

Well worth reading for insights into the issues of attempting 
to subset XML for the purpose of creating a special purpose 
XML processor.   The comments:

"SOAP messages are specified as XML Infosets -- see [1] (Note, references
are to a snapshot of the latest editors' copies of the SOAP specs,
reflecting some resolutions to last call issues.  I believe the version I
am referencing is the latest that is stable in W3C URI "date space".  It is
later than our last official WD.)  The initial sender prepares a SOAP
message in the form of what the Infoset Recommendation calls a "synthetic
infoset" [2].  In other words, the initial sender typically does not have a
document to parse to produce the infoset;  rather, the initial sender
establishes, using programming structures of its choosing (could be
something like DOM or SAX) the elements, attributes and other content of
the outgoing message."


"Of course, the counter argument to all this is:  XML allows internal
subsets and external subsets, lots of off the shelf parsers would implement
them for you, and indeed some might not report the presence of the DTD at
all.  First of all, SOAP is not the only application of XML that requires
parsers to report the presence of DTDs.  Surely an XML editor would as
well.  Indeed, there is no W3C specification for what a general purpose
processor must be, just for what XML is."

are illuminating.   As I said earlier, what is at stake in the syntax 
vs threads and the subsets/profiles threads is the standard definition 
of the semantics of an XML processor.


From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@propylon.com]

[Roger Costello]
I passed your message along to a colleague.  Here are her comments:

 >XML is a syntax.  It has no data model.  So how would one "bury a data
 >model" in it even if one wanted to?

No problem.  Just invent something like XML Schema and the PSVI. Express
processing in terms of infoset items (a data structure) with associated
strong typing information and your done!


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

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