W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: WSDL 2.0 issues

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:29:26 -0500
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1124202566.1045.640.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 10:17 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> Yes, we can drop the WSDL requirement, with the associated risks. We can
> also push back on the WSDL group to loosen some of these restrictions
> (especially the ones about output and fault serialization types) that seem
> unnecessarily restrictive.

Yes, we can ask them to take on new requirements. But imagine being
on the other end... imagine if somebody asked us to add a new
requirement at this point. We'd be pretty reluctant. But maybe
this isn't too much design work for them.

> The problem with inputing XML is solvable either by finishing SparqlX or by
> simply doing a trivial XML serialization for our query language.

I'd rather not change the protocol design just because of limitations
in protocol description technology.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 14:29:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:48 UTC