Bill de hÓra wrote: > Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > Keep in mind that SOAP is not XML. > > Yes. > > It is an XML application. When you define > > an XML application, it's perfectly legitimate to restrict > certain contructs. > > No, it is an XML Infoset application. Big difference. XML 1.0 syntax > is one possible serialization for SOAP messages.
Ah. Yes. I see the error of my ways now. Thank you. > > You're the second knowledgeable person I've seen recently make this > conflation. > > And back to the point. Why are these processors named as though the > process XML? They clearly process a subset (SOAP) and are thus not > compliant XML processors. I don't care so much that they only work > with SOAP; that's fine. I do care that they muddy the waters between > SOAP and XML 1.0 processors, that's not fine. > > Bill de hÓra > Definitely valid points. I view pull parsing as application-specific processing technique. As far as I know, there's no reason why you couldn't implement a fully compliant XML processor that uses the pull parsing technique. (Dennis, please correct me if I'm wrong.) It's just that XPP hasn't done that. As you say, pull parsing is a very efficient technique for processing SOAP messages. Anne
