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

Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (fwd)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:17:19 -0500 (EST)
To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, <bprice@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111071113170.9539-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Martin Gudgin wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
> To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
> Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>; <bprice@us.ibm.com>;
> <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (fwd)
> <SNIP>Long version</SNIP>
> > Short version: "what is SOAP-encoding for? what is it *not* for?"
> Dan,
> There are many people, myself included, that do not think that an encoding
> schema is necessary for many iteractions. Two parties just need to agree on
> what the XML is going to look like for a given exchange.
> This will probably be defined in a schema of some sort. There is no need for
> any 'standard' data encoding in many of these cases. In fact, I would go so
> far as to say we only need a 'standard' encoding for cases where two parties
> cannot agree by defining a schema.
> Martin

So would you go so far as to say that SOAP Encoding is basically just
used for RPC? I've heard this from others offlist, but the 1.2 spec and WG
charter had given me the impression that it might be intended for wider use.

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 11:17:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC