- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:39:21 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, <bprice@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Dan, IMO the spec should make clear that the Encoding can be used > everywhere it's suitable, and the RPC part can say we find the > Encoding suitable for RPC. 8-) > > Our encoding (and data model, actually) are very much modelled > for the usual needs of RPC and by the usual data models of > programming environments, so probably RPC is the only major use > for SOAP Encoding, but I doubt it is the only use. Thanks, that's very clear. It makes me feel better about the possibility of saying to RDF folk that they should be happy opting-out of using SOAP-Encoding, and that in doing so they're not needlessly diverging from an important part of XML infrastructure. My understanding now is that *lots* of apps will use SOAP, but will use alternate encoding strategies for their data instead of all using SOAP Encoding. As you say, other suitable uses of the Encoding's data model may come to light. I'm trying to find out if RDF is one of those (and be reassured that if it isn't, that's OK too). Dan
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 11:39:26 UTC