Tracking it down

At first I thought this was a coercion bug where null was getting coerced to "null" and a test of "null" == null was passing. It's not. I was close, but so very, very wrong. Sorry about that!

I've since done lots of fiddling on wonderfl.net and tracing through the code in mx.rpc.xml.*. At line 1795 of XMLEncoder (in the 3.5 source), in setValue, all of the XMLEncoding boils down to

currentChild.appendChild(xmlSpecialCharsFilter(Object(value)));

which is essentially the same as:

currentChild.appendChild("null");

This code, according to my original fiddle, returns an empty XML element. But why?

Cause

According to commenter Justin Mclean on bug report FLEX-33664, the following is the culprit (see last two tests in my fiddle which verify this):

var thisIsNotNull:XML = <root>null</root>;
if(thisIsNotNull == null){
    // always branches here, as (thisIsNotNull == null) strangely returns true
    // despite the fact that thisIsNotNull is a valid instance of type XML
}

When currentChild.appendChild is passed the string "null", it first converts it to a root XML element with text null, and then tests that element against the null literal. This is a weak equality test, so either the XML containing null is coerced to the null type, or the null type is coerced to a root xml element containing the string "null", and the test passes where it arguably should fail. One fix might be to always use strict equality tests when checking XML (or anything, really) for "nullness."

Solution

The only reasonable workaround I can think of, short of fixing this bug in every damn version of ActionScript, is to test fields for "null" and escape them as CDATA values.

CDATA values are the most appropriate way to mutate an entire text value that would otherwise cause encoding/decoding problems. Hex encoding, for instance, is meant for individual characters. CDATA values are preferred when you're escaping the entire text of an element. The biggest reason for this is that it maintains human readability.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misinformation and misconceptions around REST. Not only your question and the answer by @cmd reflect those, but most of the questions and answers related to the subject on Stack Overflow.

SOAP and REST can't be compared directly, since the first is a protocol (or at least tries to be) and the second is an architectural style. This is probably one of the sources of confusion around it, since people tend to call REST any HTTP API that isn't SOAP.

Pushing things a little and trying to establish a comparison, the main difference between SOAP and REST is the degree of coupling between client and server implementations. A SOAP client works like a custom desktop application, tightly coupled to the server. There's a rigid contract between client and server, and everything is expected to break if either side changes anything. You need constant updates following any change, but it's easier to ascertain if the contract is being followed.

A REST client is more like a browser. It's a generic client that knows how to use a protocol and standardized methods, and an application has to fit inside that. You don't violate the protocol standards by creating extra methods, you leverage on the standard methods and create the actions with them on your media type. If done right, there's less coupling, and changes can be dealt with more gracefully. A client is supposed to enter a REST service with zero knowledge of the API, except for the entry point and the media type. In SOAP, the client needs previous knowledge on everything it will be using, or it won't even begin the interaction. Additionally, a REST client can be extended by code-on-demand supplied by the server itself, the classical example being JavaScript code used to drive the interaction with another service on the client-side.

I think these are the crucial points to understand what REST is about, and how it differs from SOAP:

• REST is protocol independent. It's not coupled to HTTP. Pretty much like you can follow an ftp link on a website, a REST application can use any protocol for which there is a standardized URI scheme.

• REST is not a mapping of CRUD to HTTP methods. Read this answer for a detailed explanation on that.

• REST is as standardized as the parts you're using. Security and authentication in HTTP are standardized, so that's what you use when doing REST over HTTP.

• REST is not REST without hypermedia and HATEOAS. This means that a client only knows the entry point URI and the resources are supposed to return links the client should follow. Those fancy documentation generators that give URI patterns for everything you can do in a REST API miss the point completely. They are not only documenting something that's supposed to be following the standard, but when you do that, you're coupling the client to one particular moment in the evolution of the API, and any changes on the API have to be documented and applied, or it will break.

• REST is the architectural style of the web itself. When you enter Stack Overflow, you know what a User, a Question and an Answer are, you know the media types, and the website provides you with the links to them. A REST API has to do the same. If we designed the web the way people think REST should be done, instead of having a home page with links to Questions and Answers, we'd have a static documentation explaining that in order to view a question, you have to take the URI stackoverflow.com/questions/<id>, replace id with the Question.id and paste that on your browser. That's nonsense, but that's what many people think REST is.

This last point can't be emphasized enough. If your clients are building URIs from templates in documentation and not getting links in the resource representations, that's not REST. Roy Fielding, the author of REST, made it clear on this blog post: REST APIs must be hypertext-driven.

With the above in mind, you'll realize that while REST might not be restricted to XML, to do it correctly with any other format you'll have to design and standardize some format for your links. Hyperlinks are standard in XML, but not in JSON. There are draft standards for JSON, like HAL.

Finally, REST isn't for everyone, and a proof of that is how most people solve their problems very well with the HTTP APIs they mistakenly called REST and never venture beyond that. REST is hard to do sometimes, especially in the beginning, but it pays over time with easier evolution on the server side, and client's resilience to changes. If you need something done quickly and easily, don't bother about getting REST right. It's probably not what you're looking for. If you need something that will have to stay online for years or even decades, then REST is for you.