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

Re: RPC and data rep

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:55:19 -0800
Message-ID: <00f101c04f5f$82d44250$c24efea9@greyarea>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>
Cc: "XML Protocol Comments" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
The original mail relates to DR201( which I thought was in the subject
line ). I did not identity a particular DR in section 3.5 as the destination
for sentence two, sorry. ( and having just looked there is no obvious
candidate ). I just don't think that the idea of 'straightforward mappings'
belongs with the RPC requirements, it belongs with the data rep
requirements. Many programming models besides RPC will need such mappings.

Gudge


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: RPC and data rep


>
> Martin,
>
> could you tell us which DRs these relate to, for discussion?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 03:08:14PM -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > I think that sentence two belongs to section 3.5. I don't see how the
RPC
> > requirements can state that there must be straightforward mappings.
Surely
> > that's part of the data rep requirements
> >
> > Also I think that the use of Section 3.5 is surely not limited to RPC.
Just
> > like only having one normative transport binding ( HTTP ) will cause
people
> > to make erroneous assumptions so will having only one normative
programming
> > model ( RPC ) that specifies section 3.5.
> >
> > Gudge
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 18:56:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT