W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Plan B: fundamental contraints and scope

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:22:50 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9081B06@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

> there is no XML involved whatsoever 

That's what you think ;-). See the proposal currently discussed in the XMLP WG for including binary attachments in the SOAP Infoset at [1].

Ugo

[1] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/mgudgin/paswa/paswa.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 12:20 PM
> To: Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Plan B: fundamental contraints and scope
> 
> 
> 
> Would it make sense to add my Image thing, or Mike's 
> elaboration of it?
> That is interesting, I think, because there is no XML involved
> whatsoever and yet there is a formally descibable interface and it is
> intended for app-to-app use.
> 
> I am afraid that I find your constraints a bit cryptic, 
> particularly the
> one involving description.  In words, however, I personally see a big
> distinction between "services" that have a described, stable interface
> intended for use by an application and those (like web pages intended
> for humans) that do not.  I don't think that this has anything to do
> with WSDL per se -- conformance to WSDL seems to me to be a different
> issue.
> 
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 16:23:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT