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 11:39:21 -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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111071130240.9539-100000@tux.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).

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 11:39:26 UTC

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