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

Log: W3C Chat before XTech 2000

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:17:02 -0600
Message-ID: <38B6B90E.62046C42@w3.org>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
The log of the main channel is available at:

	http://www.w3.org/2000/02/25-xhtml-irc

but we broke out a separate channel for protocols; here's the log of
that:

Session Start: Fri Feb 25 08:22:42 2000
[08:22] *** Now talking in #xml-dist-app
[08:23] *** Ralph has joined #xml-dist-app
[08:23] <Ralph> it takes me a few minutes to startup an RRSAgent
process... (virc is slow to startup)
[08:25] <DanC> I could just work with my local log. Hmm...
[08:27] <Ralph> RRSAgent2 doesn't seem to be able to connect to
irc.openprojects.net:6665
[08:28] <DanC> I'll just use a local log
[08:28] *** DanC changes topic to
'http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/'
[08:29] *** timbl has joined #xml-dist-app
[08:29] *** dcleary has joined #xml-dist-app
[08:30] *** eric1 has joined #xml-dist-app
[08:30] <eric1> hi all
[08:30] *** KenM has joined #xml-dist-app
[08:30] *** Michael-NM has joined #xml-dist-app
[08:30] <timbl> XML-RPC and LDO both describe the attributes and
parameters.  Thesis for the sake of argument: For every RPC interface
you could instead make a namespace with elements for each procedure
[08:31] <eric1> the payback would be when people re-use eachothers types
and therefor can re-use bits of eachothers engines.
[08:31] <timbl> I can see a day when the net is full of <param
name="param-name" value="argname"> ... :)
[08:32] <KenM> timbl: yes.  we have a prototype serializer that does use
element names for procedure arguments, object member fields, and
dictionary names.
[08:32] <timbl> In that case you are using namespaces bigtime
[08:33] <timbl> Do you dostub generation (forgive my ignorance)?
[08:33] *** Michael-NM has quit IRC (Ping timeout for
Michael-NM[206.206.93.62])
[08:33] <KenM> not at the bottom end.  the bottom end works a lot like
CGI, it expects the server to coerce types as necessary
[08:34] <KenM> this avoids the need for IDL or stubs on the clients
[08:34] *** dcleary has left #xml-dist-app
[08:34] <timbl> Yes. Using namespaces, then the interface definition is
the schema. 
[08:35] <KenM> in the middle, where IDL is already available, the client
can still go stubless while the libraries do the coercion
[08:36] *** Michael-NM has joined #xml-dist-app
[08:36] <timbl> Presumbably the IDL is a seprate language - but can you
see it moving into teh schema document so that in the future eth
receiver of a message could dereference the namespace pointer and
generate stubs on the fly?
[08:36] * Michael-NM resurfaces after GTE loses connection, three times
in a row.
[08:38] <KenM> for object values, easily.  I'm not so sure how easily
for procedure/method signatures
[08:39] <KenM> there would have to be a way to associate a method with
an object value
[08:40] * timbl surfs http://casbah.org/LDO/xml-serialization.html
[08:40] <eric1> i propose that using XML schema to replace the soap
types defined in http://www.xmlrpc.com/stories/storyReader$7 would be a
"good thing". any comments?
[08:40] <timbl> /me finds Example type attribute values are: 
[08:40] <timbl>     perl:scalar
[08:40] <timbl>     xml-dcd:ui1
[08:40] <timbl>     corba:i4
[08:40] <timbl>     mime:text/html
[08:40] <timbl>     ldo:number
[08:40] <timbl> seems to be crying out for namespaces
[08:41] * timbl not sure what ken means by object value
[08:41] <KenM> exactly, though they were originally inspired by URI
scheme identifiers
[08:42] <Michael-NM> Methods have to be tied to a particular object
instance.
[08:42] <DanC> Don Box seems to expect to replace parts of the SOAP type
system with XML Schemas.
[08:42] <Michael-NM> Not just to an object class.
[08:42] <timbl> Types should be first class objects <--> have URIs
[08:42] <timbl> That way you can define your own and wait till the other
XML types are available
[08:42] <KenM> timbl: just "objects"
[08:42] <DanC> Box on Soap and schemas:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Feb/0000.html ->
http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/02/09/feature/index.html
[08:42] <timbl> and then you can retrospecively document any
equivalences
[08:46] <timbl> One fo the things which is surface increasingly often is
a call for some common work on protocols between all the various xml
protocols - what do you think, Ken?
[08:48] <KenM> stated simply, I agree.  after that, though, it gets
complicated.  a lot of "XML protocol" is just sending XML instances over
TCP or HTTP.  A lot of B2B folks want routing, store-n-forward,
validation, third-party validation, etc.  it's those latter that
[08:49] <KenM> "really" need common protocols.
[08:51] <timbl> Sounds different layers
[08:51] *** iefbr14 has joined #xml-dist-app
[08:52] <KenM> yes, payload and header for one.  then the payload may be
of a general type, but with industry or vendor additions.  the header
may have provider additions, etc.
[08:52] <timbl> Like a simple namespace for associating a request with a
reply, a seperate namespace for busness clutter.
[08:52] <eric1> i imagine a layer that outside the
protocol/request/response layer that allows a client or a server to
decide to send the request over SMTP rather than HTTP
[08:53] <timbl> I prefer to think of headers as a transparent wrapper.
[08:53] <eric1> or serve as a store and forward envelope
[08:54] <KenM> I recently posted a draft of an API for LDO that touches
on protocol selection
<http://casbah.org/pipermail/devel/Week-of-Mon-20000221/000669.html>
[08:54] <timbl> Example, make a v simple langauge yu can send by email
which means "please take the following and execute an HTTP POST on my
behalf with the following conditions:"
[08:55] <KenM> I'm thinking of using extended URLs, prefixing a
transport URL with an upper-level procotol scheme, like
xmlrpc:http://casbah.org/listener
[08:56] *** iefbr14 has left #xml-dist-app
[08:56] <timbl> Hmmm...   I have always had two minds about
puttingstructure in URIs
[08:57] <eric1> is that better than associating symantic wiht a
namespace and having the apps understand the namespace?
[08:57] <timbl> like http://(smtp to gateway .com. then x25 to fred and
then http to 12.34.45.6)/foo
[08:58] <timbl> Ken: Can't you just make the listener a typed object
which acceots xmlrpc POST?
[08:58] <eric1> the prob with xmlrpc:http%3A//casbah.org/listener is
that it's not a general solution. the uri protocol space can become
cluttered more quickly than the namespace space.
[08:58] <timbl> Afetr all, there are many typed of service on the web.
[08:58] <eric1> also, uri protocols need to be centralized
[08:58] <KenM> the question becomes: how does the client know?
[08:59] <timbl> You can think of XMLRPC as one of teh namespaces
whichthe listener supports. 
[08:59] <eric1> same way either way, it was programmed to look in either
the uri or the namespace data
[08:59] <timbl> You define am RDF statement (xxx supports nnnn)
[09:00] <timbl> You then distribute the RDF statement any way you like.
One way is in response to a HEAD request
[09:00] <KenM> at the low-end, there is no namespace data (there's no
external data outside of verbal/written communication)
[09:00] <timbl> It separates the langauges something speaks whith  its
identity.
[09:01] <eric1> if i write something that takes apart xmlrpc: uris, i
can just as easily write the same thing to look for
xmlns:xrpc="http://foo/xmlrpc" namespaces and look for xrpc:bar
parameters
[09:01] <timbl> So  http://house.blee.org/outside/faucet would have an
idenity which would persists as I updates its LDO version
[09:02] <KenM> eric1: yes, if the message being sent includes that
information in a namespace.
[09:02] <eric1> ken: i don't understand your "low-end" statement
[09:02] <timbl> Ken, how does a client find out the address of the
object in the first place, in a typicla scenario?
[09:04] * timbl realised the time
[09:05] <KenM> note: I see a difference between remote
procedures/methods and XML messaging (and see I've been mixing the two,
unfortunately)
[09:05] * KenM is OK to continue
[09:05] <eric1> i don't see much of a difference
[09:05] * eric1 is fine for another hour
[09:06] <KenM> XML messaging presupposes that the client starts out with
an XML instance.  remote procedures/methods deal only with
already-defined language objects
[09:06] * timbl has to leave
[09:06] <eric1> bye tim
[09:07] *** timbl is now known as tim-out
[09:07] <eric1> what is an XML instance?
[09:07] <eric1> (sorry if i'm being dense here)
[09:07] <KenM> timbl: one finds the address of the object usually in a
written document somewhere, like a "how to use XML-RPC to access the
database".
[09:09] <Michael-NM> 'instance' = 'document instance', as opposed to
'document type'
[09:09] <eric1> roger
[09:09] <KenM> in what I'm describing, XML messaging makes XML primary
and the client/server language/system secondary (the clients job is to
get the XML to the server).  In RPC, the client/server language/system
is primary and XML secondary
[09:11] <KenM> (note, we want to support both in LDO)
[09:12] <eric1> is this personel data update a message or a procedure?
[09:12] <eric1> <P:person><P:uid DB:type='unique'>123</P:uid><P:status
DB:type='update'>fired</P:status></P:person>
[09:12] <KenM> on the XML messaging side, you are correct that the
message itself can include routing and protocol information.  On the RPC
side, that has to come from somewhere else, a nameserver, inherently, or
from the user.
[09:20] * Michael-NM has to drop out now. So long!
[09:20] <eric1> bye
[09:22] *** Michael-NM has left #xml-dist-app
[09:34] <eric1> http://frontier.userland.com/stories/storyReader$1077
[09:35] <KenM> http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec
[09:38] <eric1> <param type="i4">41</param>
[09:39] <KenM> http://casbah.org/LDO/xml-serialization.html
[09:54] *** Ralph has left #xml-dist-app
[10:50] *** KenM has quit IRC (will follow-up to xml-dist-app)



Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> I just discovered there are 117 subscribers lurking in this forum.
> I hope you'll take advantage of this IRC chat to come out of the
> woodwork
> and let us know what you're up to.
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C
> http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: W3C Chat before XTech 2000: XHTML - a bridge to the Web of the future
> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:36:22 -0600
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Reply-To: michael@w3.org, ht@w3.org, dv@w3.org, eric@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
> Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/)
> To: www-html@w3.org
> Newsgroups: comp.text.xml,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
> 
> XTech 2000 (http://www.gca.org/attend/2000_conferences/xtech_2000/)
> is around the corner, and members of W3C team will be there,
> including Eric Prud'hommeaux, Michael Sperberg-McQueen, Henry Thompson,
> and Daniel Veillard.
> 
> If you're going (or not), you may have questions regarding recent W3C
> developments, including
> 
>         XHTML 1.0
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1
> 
>         How W3C works
>         http://www.w3.org/Consortium/
> 
> Plus, you might be interested in discussions of XML messaging,
> distributed computing, transactions, and protocols:
> 
>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app
> 
> In this spirit, we'd like to have a pre-conference chat - here are the
> details:
> 
> Who:     All are welcome
> 
>           W3C team members attending the chat include Dan Connolly,
>           Masayasu Ishikawa, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Michael
> Sperberg-McQueen,
>           Henry Thompson, and Daniel Veillard.
> 
>           Also from the HTML Working Group: Steven Pemberton and Shane
> McCarron
> 
> When: Friday 25 February, at 1400Z (9am Eastern Time), for about an hour
> 
>           (Apologies to the parts of the world where that's
> inconvenient.)
>           The log will go online - our previous chat is at:
>           http://www.w3.org/1999/12/w3c-irc2409
> 
> Where: irc://irc.openprojects.net/#w3c
>         i.e. channel #w3c on irc.openprojects.net
> 
>         about this IRC network, see
>         Open Projects Network - New User?
>         http://openprojects.nu/about.html
> 
>         stay tuned to the XML home page http://www.w3.org/XML/
>         for other details.
> 
> What to bring:
> 
>           Send your pre-chat ideas, proposals, position papers, and
>        "here's what I did with XHTML" to
> 
>           www-html@w3.org
> 
> Suggested reading:
> 
>           XHTML 1.0
>           http://www.w3.org/xhtml1
> 
>           HTML Activity
>           http://www.w3.org/Markup/
> 
>           W3C Extensible Markup Language (XML) Activity
>           http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity
> 
>           www-html mailing list
>           http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html
> 
>           xml-dist-app mailing list
>           http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app
> 
>           xml-dev mailing list
>           http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
>         http://www.egroups.com/list/xml-dev/info.html
> 
>         Subject: Call for Participation: W3C Public IRC Chat on XHTML
>         Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:33:17 +0100
>         http://www.egroups.com/group/xml-dev/18169.html?
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly
> http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 25 February 2000 12:17:18 GMT

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