RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

Hi Sanjiva

>> <pauld> sees more benefit in resource centric approaches such as WADL 
>> for REST; WSDL 2.0 could be useful for people interested in POX

> WADL can waddle along and defined whatever they want. That doesn't mean we 
> need to pull this out. If users don't want both let market forces decide 
> the "winner".

+1 FWIW, I was trying to emphasise the difference between WSDL HTTP 
which is great for describing messaging systems, but shouldn't get 
mired by being sold as some kind of REST description language.

> WSDL's HTTP binding is not about REST! Its about describing how to 
> exchange WSDL messages over raw HTTP without SOAP.

Agreed.

Paul