- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:29:26 -0500
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 10:17 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote: [...] > Yes, we can drop the WSDL requirement, with the associated risks. We can > also push back on the WSDL group to loosen some of these restrictions > (especially the ones about output and fault serialization types) that seem > unnecessarily restrictive. Yes, we can ask them to take on new requirements. But imagine being on the other end... imagine if somebody asked us to add a new requirement at this point. We'd be pretty reluctant. But maybe this isn't too much design work for them. > The problem with inputing XML is solvable either by finishing SparqlX or by > simply doing a trivial XML serialization for our query language. I'd rather not change the protocol design just because of limitations in protocol description technology. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 14:29:32 UTC