W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:27:45 -0400
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFE8D0E2E.C3A4A276-ON85256C0F.0042D8D4@rchland.ibm.com>

Architecturally, the point that WSA should be focused on is how two nodes
determine which wire format is most suitable for exchange of the infoset
the two adjacent nodes. Having a baseline default serialization that MUST
be supported would go a long ways towards ensuring the broadest level of
I would tend to lean towards SHOULD because MUST might be impractical in

Architecturally speaking, this could be abstracted to "how can two nodes
and negotiate(?), QoS parameters" since serialization encoding is but one
facet to be agreed upon.

As to infoset serialization, I thought that this was already covered by
XML1.0 and Infoset
specs. I could be wrong, but I don't see a need for any new WG to define
serialization for pointy brackets.


Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

                      "Champion, Mike"                                                                                                  
                      <Mike.Champion@Software        To:       www-ws-arch@w3.org                                                       
                      AG-USA.com>                    cc:                                                                                
                      Sent by:                       Subject:  RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability                                  
                      08/07/2002 08:51 PM                                                                                               

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 7:54 PM
> To: 'Ugo Corda'; 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability
> Do we really want this in Web Service-land; is there any
> point without a wire format?

Are you suggesting that WSA ask SOAP to re-think its defininition on top of
the infoset rather than XML syntax?  Or maybe suggesting that web services
SHOULD use XML pointy brackets rather than some alternative syntax?

I think we ought to say that to maximize interoperability, the XML syntax
clearly best practice.  Still, there are other considerations besides
interoperability [he says, awaiting the thunderbolts from the RESTifarians
<grin>].  As far as my MQSeries - Web via intermediary scenario goes, I
don't think it matters to the WSA what some internal implementation of SOAP
does for a wire format so long as they preserve the infoset representation.
More plausibly, would anyone insist that the "wire" format of wireless web
services use pointy brackets, namespace URIs in all their bloated glory,
etc.  if they can compress/tokenize/whatever that stuff away?  We can say
that's bad practice for interoperability, but they may point out that
interoperability of services that are too slow to be economically viable is
not really an issue worth debating.

Or to put it another way, the WSA might recommend XML syntax as a wire
format for interoperability reasons, but must not build higher layers or
dependent modules on the assumption of XML syntax, only that whatever the
wire format is, it can be mapped to the SOAP infoset representation.
anyone disagree?  I think we're asking for a fight with the XMLP and TAG
folks if we suggest backtracking on the infoset basis for the formal specs.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 08:36:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:36 UTC