SOAP and XML support

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 08:39:25AM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > Correct, but note that it's about languages in general, i.e. it does
> not
> > preclude to have only one. I would agree with Tim here and be worried
> > about the cost of trying to do so. We already excluded SOAP messages
> for
> > example.
> 
> I don't think we've precluded SOAP.  I don't see any proposal so far
> that precludes saying that an HTTP POST input is-a soap envelope and the
> response is-a soap envelope.

Strongly agreed.  RDF Forms, as an example, actually relies upon SOAP
for some of its more esoteric capabilities (which are arguably outside
the 80/20 happy point, but that's a topic for another discussion).

SOAP can be used RESTfully.  I therefore consider it entirely in scope,
so long as it doesn't mean jumping through hoops to support it (which
in my experience, it doesn't).

> I think that probably the most important decision is whether the focus
> is on describing XML based resources or MIME based resources.

I think "MIME based resources" is a misnomer, as I presume you're
talking about resource whose representations include Internet media
type metadata.  Media types haven't been MIME specific in practice
for some time, and are currently in the process of being formally
detached from the MIME specs.

So in your terms, I'd say that XML resources are "MIME resources".

>I'm
> mostly concerned about describing XML, and I'm less concerned about
> describing PNG resources.

I'm mostly concerned about describing XML too, but not *only* concerned
about it.  Turtle/N3, YAML, HTML-based microformats, and even CSV, all
have value to me and to others.  Not to mention whatever great new thing
might be coming down the pipes ...

>I think the power of automation is with XML.

I don't think XML has a monopoly on automation.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.          http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies   http://www.coactus.com

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 16:32:10 UTC