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] Partyin' like it's 1999

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Rich Salz wrote:

>> XML canonicalisation. In particular, I want to avoid the complexities 
>> that result from combining  XML 1.0  canonicalisation with namespaces 
>> (e.g. Exclusive XML canonicalization :-)
> Once you done the work of C14N, exc-c14n isn't that much more. :)
> Less flippantly, I took a look at RIG2 and skimmed RIG3.  It seems 
> like the combination of limitations on xmlns (not at the docroot, no 
> bleed-thru, no use of alternate prefixes, etc) means that you're 
> essentially outlawing the ability to use a layered SOAP 
> implementation.  Was that the intent?

I'm not sure I follow. I should point out that RIG100 specifies a 
business level envelope in which all messages are encapsulated. 
Particular transports - such as SOAP - can add their own transport-level 
enveloping as required. Thus SOAP enveloping is something that happens 
outside of, rather than inside of, RIG 2 compliant messages. In fact, I 
expect that most, if not all transport adapters for the SOA as specified 
will elect to hive off the RIG 2 compliant payload as an attachment. 
This is fine because the transport adapter is the outer most layer of 
the SOA onion and is peeled prior to content-based routing, 
interventionist proxying etc.

> Also requirement 25 in RIG2 (no superfluous declarations) seems 
> redundant since RIG2 already mandates RIG3.

Thanks. I'll look into that.



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

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