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

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

From: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Date: 17 Apr 2000 14:39:05 -0500
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <x5vh1gpleu.fsf@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Glen Daniels <gdaniels@allaire.com> writes:

> [Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us> writes:]
> > 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.

> 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.

I didn't mean to imply that it was out of the discussion, as much as
we can/should begin seperating or being more clear about the areas of
discussion.  To me, serialization seems to be the easiest thing to
unbind from any of the extant protocols, and hence a good place to
start.  As another example, David's points would be great in a
messaging requirements doc.

  -- Ken
Received on Monday, 17 April 2000 15:35:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC