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

RE: !-Re: ebXML Abandons SOAP

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:46:26 -0700
Message-ID: <186F02933E65D4118EA200508BA37277A4C615@neptune.commerceone.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Talk about a thread with misleading headings !! Most of the emails on this
thread have had nothing to do with ebXML !!!

So just for the record I'll repeat from an earlier email ...

"ebXML abandons SOAP" is a rumour. A more accurate description is as

1. ebXML has not abandoned SOAP, but we haven't adopted it either - I
personally, and other people in ebXML, see the W3C XP activity as a
potential path of convergence between SOAP and ebXML
2. On MIME, we selected MIME rather than XML because, **right now** (notice
the emphasis) it is the only **standard** (notice the emphasis again) way to
digitally sign and encrypt documents, and
3. We wanted to have one way of encapsulating/wrapping/enveloping electronic
data whether it was XML or not.

Let's not pre-judge any outcomes of the XP work before the first XP meeting
has even been held.


PS If anyone sends any more emails on this topic ... PLEASE change the
subject ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@lectrosonics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:47 AM
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: !-Re: ebXML Abandons SOAP

Kurt writes:

On the other hand, if you go the other route, then you're forced into
trying to move XML over HTTP, you run into the danger of a single
proprietary solution dominating (aka SOAP or JAVX), and things get
otherwise messy.

But how about a single standard solution dominating?
The only danger might be that we could interoperate!

One possible solution might be to make use of processing instructions. You
could essentially keep the whole structure within a formal XML document,
since PIs don't have to be within the internal content, yet you still have
something that can easily be parsed by an XML processor: ...

The problem with PI's (I think) is that they aren't specifiable in any
schema you 
may want to use...Aren't PI's outside the scope of XML Schema?

Received on Friday, 6 October 2000 20:50:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC