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

RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite)

From: Daniela Florescu <daniela.florescu@propel.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:14:50 -0700
Message-ID: <A59E9E87D8CAD311B005009027AFC5F001F85F97@exchg01.propel.com>
To: "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@zolera.com>, costello@mitre.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I don't think it is a naive comment at all.
In fact, I strongly agree with Roger and
I support the idea that the WG should 
seriously consider to toss the section 5, 
or to put it in a different (non mandatory)
 document.

The way I wrap the internal data of my application
(PL/SQL or Cobol for example because I am a database person)
into an XML document is my own internal business,
and I think it is inappropriate for a W3C WG to
standardize on this. In fact, section 5 does not help
me at all in this task, it just provides noise that
makes my task more difficult.

From my own experience, none of the companies that
I know or work with seriously consider to use the
information in Section 5 when they map their internal
data into Soap message bodies. Thinking that
 they will do is naive.

My 3 cents and a half,
Dana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@zolera.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 7:27 PM
> To: costello@mitre.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite)
> 
> 
> By design, SOAP enables both structured-data and xml-document 
> exchange. 
> Just because you find the latter completely sufficient is no 
> reason cut
> the bar in half. :)
> 
> So yes, I'd say it's a naive comment.
> 	/r$
> 
> 
> -- 
> Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
> Encryption)
> http://www.zolera.com
> 
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 12:15:23 GMT

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