[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Cavnar-Johnson, John wrote:
> I agree. As I stated previously, my initial skimming of this document
> was faulty.
My skimming of theis threads was faulty too. I fired a post off
before I got to your other.
> I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you making a statement about
> this spec in particular or a larger point about SOAP?
[...]
> What? I don't understand your response.
I'm not sure what to make of claims along the lines of
"<subset-here> is an application of XML", other than to say that it
sound wrong. I thought XHTML was an XML application. The point about
SOAP is that it doesn't key off XML anymore anyway; it keys off the
Infoset.
> After reading the spec more closely, I think the real danger is in
> mandating parser behavior that will guarantee incompatibility with other
> implementations.
That's an economic danger imo. It costs to work around the
incompatability and the costs increase disproportionally as the
number of parser variants increase. Technically it's always possible
to patch around an incompatability.
Bill de hÓra
|
