• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:35:10 -0500
• Cc: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFA4@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFA4@h...>
• 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: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

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