W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Proposal for a protocol binding model

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200108210503.BAA10204@markbaker.ca>
To: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

I like and support what you propose here, and while mostly complete,
I believe it to be missing one important feature.

As I discussed in my proposal for two HTTP bindings[1], I suggest that
we need a means for unambiguously identifying when a protocol (including
RPC) is being tunneled over an application protocol, versus when it
inherits the application semantics of that protocol.  The binding model
seems like the right place to specify this.

Obviously it can't specify the syntax because that will have to vary
depending upon the application protocol.  But it should mandate (or
otherwise facilitate, should the model itself not be normative) that
syntax be consistent for each protocol, not just each binding.  e.g.
HTTP bindings may choose to use application/soap+tunnel+xml versus
application/soap+xml (which, coincidentally, I am suggesting we use
for our HTTP bindings).

FWIW, this could be represented as a "property" per your proposal (say,
"IS_TUNNELING"), and should be defined by us at a w3.org namespace.
But the important part is somehow ensuring consistency of syntax for
any given application protocol.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jul/0241.html

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 01:03:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC