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

RE: Draft of Definitions

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:33:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB0102C2FA@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@systinet.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>, Keith Ballinger <KeithBa@msn.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Hi Jacek!

I think as long as we keep XML infoset at the core of describing what goes into the messages, we can be "xml-centric" and explicitly not care about whether actual angle-brackets flow over whatever transport binding you happen to be using.

--Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:11 AM
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Cc: David Booth; Keith Ballinger; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft of Definitions
> 
> 
> Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
>  > Also, like David Orchard[3], I tend to think a definition 
> for Web-Service ought
>  > to contain the word "XML".
> 
> Does this preclude HTTP GET and POST web services? We can take 
> web services generally as services accessible via the Web (no XML 
> mentioned here as it is not necessary) or as services accessible 
> via the XML Protocol (XML is mentioned).
> 
> Personally, I'm not sure WSDL should care about the non-XML 
> services so I prefer the latter option. 8-)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 08:24:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT