• To: 'Rich Salz' <rsalz@d...>
• Subject: RE: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: [xm l-dev] The subsetting has begun)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:39:54 -0600
• Cc: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>

Yes and thanks, Rich.  

1. Why are they requesting an XML subset sanction beyond 
that which they already define for their own use? (IOW, 
what is the point of what Liam has been tasked to do 
by the TAG?)

2.  Would XML-SW meet their requirements?

len 


From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@d...]

> 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?

• Prev by Date: Re: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Next by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Previous by thread: RE: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Next by thread: RE: On permathreads
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread