> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:11:18 +0100
> From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
> As the client and server have no control over what might happen to
> the literal XML in transit. XOP routers, XML over morse routers etc
> are only required to preserver the XML tree in transit not the
> literal XML text. So an SRW client cannot rely on anything
> intrinsic to the literal XML over the XML tree, unless it has full
> control over the route from server to client.
> Incidently, it was interoperability problems cause by "laziness"
> (SOAP tools which broke if the namespace prefix wasn't the string
> "SOAP", for example) that motivated the WebService Interoperatbility
> profile work...
> We could take the DDTT approach - but do we want to position SRW in a
> way that means SRW servers have trouble supporting WS-Security; SRW
> servers wo'n't work behind WebService firewalls; accepted XML bad
> practice is SRW good practice?
Yeah, OK, you've persuaded me. Sorry, Rob.
... though I still don't understand why signing proxies have to mess
with records. But that's a whole nother story.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "What happens if there are ambiguities? We just resolve
them by rules" -- Mike Selway.
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio