- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 22:44:24 -0400
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
David, On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:24:38PM -0700, David Orchard wrote: > Further, wrt SOAP, the TAG has been asked, by a TAG member, to review SOAP > 1.2 wrt web architecture. The TAG hasn't yet issued a finding on this. > It's premature to claim that various SOAP modelling styles are in violation > of web architecture, given the TAG hasn't issued a finding on what you > claim. I'm not claiming that SOAP 1.2 is incompatible with Web architecture. I know that it *is* compatible, because I helped ensure that it was with my work on the XML Protocol WG (modulo the RPC section, which was required by our charter). I *am* claiming that people are using SOAP in a way that is not Web architecture friendly, including the examples in our use cases. As Roy said; "The difference between an application-level protocol and a transport-level protocol is that an application-level includes application semantics, by standard agreement, within the messages that the protocol transfers. That is why HTTP is called a Transfer protocol. It is impossible to conform to an application-level protocol without also conforming faithfully to its message semantics." -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Apr/0303.html > And whether a stock classifies an "important" resource wrt URI assignment is > debatable. Seriously? If so, I formally request that we request clarification from the TAG. I would be happy to draft the request. > Let's let the TAG do the work in their forum and when they come out with > more definitive work, then we can look at the examples. That work for you? I'm looking forward to their findings, but no, I'm afraid that I'm not content to wait until after we've chartered working groups that may or not have anything to do with the Web. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 22:37:05 UTC