- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:44:01 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Why is a separate property necessary? I'd imagine that you'd just define two bindings; one without many (or any) properties exposed, one with a number. You could use different content types for them (tho I don't really see the utility in this). Cheers, On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:03:19AM -0400, Mark Baker wrote: > Henrik, > > 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 > > MB > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 13:44:08 UTC