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

Re: Web Services Definition and XML

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:59:41 -0800
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020305015941.GB21457@w3.org>
* Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2002-03-04 19:17-0500]
> > 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?

I am not replying to this on purpose because my mind is unclear about
that. Thinking out loud, CSS or even PNG could very well be
machine-processed, but wouldn't be used as a medium of communication,
just as output. Having said that, I am sure that somebody will prove
me wrong.

> 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.

I believe that all those (XML Infoset, serialization of the Infoset
(with angle brackets or not, in an envelope or not), XML Query (even
if the syntax isn't XML-based)) belong to the XML family, and are
therefore in the XML bucket referred to in the charter.

Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 20:59:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:54 UTC