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

Re: A personal plea for peace and just a wee bit of patience (and I do mean a wee bit)

From: Constantine Plotnikov <cap@mail.novosoft.ru>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:35:37 +0600
Message-ID: <38BFCDB9.AEAEA83E@mail.novosoft.ru>
To: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
CC: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>, SOAP@discuss.develop.com, "Tim O'Reilly (E-mail)" <tim@oreilly.com>, timbl@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org, connolly@w3.org, eric@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail)" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Steve Vinoski (E-mail)" <vinoski@iona.com>
"Box, Don" wrote:
> No one had concrete criticisms of the SOAP serialization format. That does
> not mean it is perfect. However, it means that no one who has looked at the
> spec has any credible technical show-stoppers that they are willing to share
> in an open forum.
I personally like XMI 1.1 serialization algorithm more. It is 
more simple to decode and encode then SOAP one if schema is
used. Without schema it is a bit more difficult to get types 
of values. I would suggest to consider XMI algorithm for payload 

XMI 1.1 Specification can be downloaded at
Main Document: http://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ad/99-10-03.pdf
Appendices: http://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ad/99-10-02.pdf

To get feel of the spec, please look at "99-10-03" document at 
examples section.

I would like to discussion to continue in xml-dist-app@w3.org 
only. It has very low trafic currently. 

To be used for RPC it need some additions like standard 
array type.

Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 09:36:31 UTC

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