W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2000

RE: Announcement: WWW9 Panel on XML and Protocols, 17 May 2000

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@allaire.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:24:38 -0400
Message-ID: <C3843BD1B83DD2119D79000092A7BAD401A83BEF@platinum.allaire.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Ken:

I agree with your basic point here.  However, it seems to me that one of the
big points to discuss/settle in Amsterdam is exactly the kind of question
David put forth here.  Yes, perhaps serialization does belong in a separate
group, but since the extant protocols which we'll certainly be using as
examples all include a fairly tightly-bound serialization model, it's
probably important to keep it in the discussion for now.

		--Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 8:51 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Announcement: WWW9 Panel on XML and Protocols, 
> 17 May 2000
> 
> 
> [I have trimmed the Cc list to only xml-dist-app.  Please do not Cc me
> directly on posts to xml-dist-app.]
> 
> David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> writes:
> 
> > Henrik says ...
> > 
> > >>>David brings up good points - no doubt about that but I 
> think we have to
> > keep in mind which layer(s) they apply to<<<
> > 
> > I agree. 
> > 
> > But what layers do we need, when do need to develop them and in what
> > sequence?
> 
> I think we can clearly seperate serialization (a la SOAP Section 8)
> from most other aspects (messaging and transport, specifically).
> 
> I think a serialization format can and should be discussed in its own
> forum, track, and/or working group.  The other aspects are a much
> larger problem space.
> 
>   -- Ken
> 
Received on Monday, 17 April 2000 09:29:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT