W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

RE: T is for Transfer

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:30:47 -0500
To: "'Jim Dixon'" <jdd@dixons.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201c1d771$5f79ab10$cbf39280@SAIDIN>
> This would seem to severely constrain the degree to which 
> information from the HTTP protocol layer is useful.  
> Presumably if there is a fault, it needs to be communicated 
> back to X identically whether it occurs before or after the 
> non-HTTP link (the ==>).

I understand the requirements that come into play for multi-protocol,
multi-hop messages to work. I also am a lot more interested in the web
and only the web, because that's pretty much where I am as a developer.

I'm a lot more interested in SOAP if it plays nice and works alongside
(and not invisibly to) everything else on the web. If it takes a
separate binding that isn't constrained by non-web concerns, I don't
have a problem with that. Absent such a binding, the utility of XML,
schema, RDF, etc. with HTTP is a lot higher than the utility of SOAP,
IMHO. And purely from a truth in advertising standpoint, the rubric "web
services" ought to go.

-- Scott
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 17:30:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT