> 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
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/