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

Re: Proposal for a protocol binding model

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
Message-ID: <20010821104356.G23163@mnot.net>

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).


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
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 13:44:08 UTC

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