RE: Plan B: fundamental contraints and scope

Don't forget SOAP's Web Method Feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 1:26 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Plan B: fundamental contraints and scope
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I saw in that had at least a <soap> somewhere.  That's a
> little more wordy than just an HTTP-TYPE that is an image, isn't it?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 3:23 PM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Plan B: fundamental contraints and scope
> 
> 
> > 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 18:20:03 UTC