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

RE: Web Services Definition and XML

From: David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:44:29 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01be01c1c3ef$ac6b7c90$0100007f@beasys.com>
You've got it Mark.  At least side of the communication must be XML.  Very
common examples I can think of that have only one side:
- GET encoded queries returning SOAP messages
- One way SOAP HTTP Messages returning only an HTTP status code.

A further refinement is that at least one part of the communication must be
XML.  So an XML document with a binary attachment, or SOAP encoded DIME, or
SOAP with attachments all qualify.

Perhaps Hugo is on to something about the notion of the definition of XML as
the "XML family" though.  XML based where XML means whatever the W3C says
XML currently means?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 6:33 PM
> To: Hugo Haas
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Web Services Definition and XML
> Hey Hugo,
> > 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 do you mean by "medium of communication"?  A SOAP envelope
> perhaps?
> > 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.
> Ok, let's see what I can conclude from that ...
> In the XML family of pipelined XML technologies we have XML
> Query, which
> accepts non-XML content and produces XML.  We also have XSLT which
> accepts XML and can produce plain text.
> That says to me that it is not a requirement of technologies
> in the XML
> family that they necessarily produce or consume XML.  It is only
> required that they *either* produce, consume, or otherwise operate on
> or inspect (such as Infoset, XPointer, etc..) XML.
> Is that fair?  If so, I'd say that leaves us considerable
> leeway in how
> we meet our charter, which is a Very Good Thing.
> 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 21:45:34 UTC

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