xml-dev - Re: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xml-dev]

Re: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xml-dev]

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun)
From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:35:10 -0500
Cc: XML Dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFA4@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFA4@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

> o  The Disconnect:  Why should SOAP request a subset 
>    of the syntax if SOAP is described in terms of an infoset?

There are two parts to SOAP:  how messages are transported between SOAP 
nodes (the various transport bindings), and how you process the parsed 
Infoset-based message abstraction once you've got it.

There is no disconnect:  the only defined SOAP transport (XML over HTTP) 
uses an XML subset.

Make sense?
	/r$

References:
- RE: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun)
  - From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun)
Next by Date: RE: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xm l-dev] The subsetting has begun)
Previous by thread: RE: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun)
Next by thread: RE: [xml-dev] Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread