W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Web Services Definition and XML

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:17:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203050017.TAA21297@markbaker.ca>
To: david.orchard@bea.com (David Orchard)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Dave,

> Now I'm a person that leans towards sometimes re-interpreting charters, but
> I draw the line in the sand on this one.  I believe that the Web Services
> definition MUST make explicit reference to XML.  Perhaps the actual bits on
> the wire don't have to be XML - like using SSL or GZIP - but the basis for
> the inputs and outputs of the service sure have to be XML or a well
> understood transformation.  I also include a packaging of XML into something
> like MIME or DIME as being XML based.
> 
> Like I argued for URIs, I will also argue for XML in our definition.  This
> is a show-stopper.

Seriously?  There's a whack load of useful binary and non-XML text
formats out there.  You really want to exclude PDF, GIF, JPG, and CSS
from being returned or accepted by a Web service?  What about XQuery, a
key part of XML infrastructure?  It doesn't use an XML based syntax, nor
should it need to.

I know XML is important, and will be a huge part of what people use with
Web services, but you seriously want to *prevent* Web services from
using those content formats?

Also, why do packaging mechanisms get an exception?

Perhaps you were trying to say with your "well understood
transformation" comment that the model should be based on the XML
Infoset, not the XML serialization thereof.  That would make more sense,
IMHO.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 19:13:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:55 GMT