Date:         Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:29:07 -0500
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: XML records inside ZING packets - more info from SOAP list
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I am pleased to hear the string recommendation.  I have come to the same
conclusion myself.

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Kent [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: XML records inside ZING packets - more info from SOAP list


I sent out a query for feedback on the SOAP builders mailing list
and got some interesting issues back.

One of the issues with embedding XML in SOAP packets is that SOAP
headers can use things like id attributes which may collide with
XML in the body. SOAP headers are permitted to interact with
contents of the body.

Without going into detail, I believe what this means is that to
embed XML using document/literal encoding in SOAP packets is only
safe for XML specifically designed to be used in that situation.
If the XML document was not explicitly designed for embedding in
a SOAP packet, it can cause SOAP errors due to conflicts and other
such things. Basically it can fail.

I believe people want to use XML schemas etc that were not
designed with SOAP in mind (they have been designed to be good
for their own purposes). Hence I am strengthened in my belief
that (1) SOAP did not get it quite right and (2) SRW (with SOAP)
should use string for record data.

On the other hand, for SRU, I think there is advantage in XML being
returned for records (can use XSLT etc). So I think the returned XML
should not use SOAP wrapper elements because the responses are not SOAP.
Just use XML schemas etc to define the returned XML format (those
schemas can be shared with SRW if desired).

Alan