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

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

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:32:58 -0400
To: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000417183258.C27982@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Ken MacLeod wrote:
> [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.

If we devote some time and attention to the general architecture, we
can get a clear picture of what the pieces need from each other.
However, I doubt it is yet time to have sepperate groups looking at
serialization and RPC. Also, I'm not convinced that serialization
would be specified in a sepparate document from messaging. The two
seem to rely on each other pretty intimately. It is easy to imaging
stacking an RPC protocol on top of a standard message format without
having the message format require anything of the RPC protocol. I'm
having a harder time drawing such a line between messaging and
serialization. Do you have some time to draw up a doc describing the
goals of these sepparate groups?

-- 
-eric

(eric@w3.org)
Received on Monday, 17 April 2000 18:33:02 GMT

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