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

Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:04:04 +0200 (CEST)
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
cc: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107251955170.1704-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Rich,
 in my understanding yes, encoding is also a thing that "is not
core". But actually neither is HTTP binding beccause it doesn't
preclude other bindings, or even other bindings to HTTP. So HTTP
"should be moved into a separate document", too.
 In order to minimalize the number of documents, there was some
agreement on the last RPC TF telecon that the WG could produce
two documents:
 1) the core, which all SOAP processors MUST implement in order
to be compliant,
 2) a set of recommended normative extensions (not in the
abstract model sense) - the HTTP binding, data encoding, RPC,
possibly a correlation extension etc.

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/




On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Rich Salz wrote:

 > +1 to what Jacek wrote.
 >
 > I supose this means that Sec5 should be moved into a separate document,
 > too? Or -- for interoperability purposes -- should we require all SOAP
 > implementations to understand sec5 encoding?
 >
 > > +1 with Marc's change. I wasn't against visibly removing RPC from
 > > the core of SOAP, I just didn't like the term "extension" used
 > > here. 8-)
 >
 >
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 14:04:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT