- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:24:50 -0400
- To: Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 02:51:35PM -0400, Heather Kreger wrote: > - Services are described with WDSL (i.e. a formal document) Well, our definition currently says; "whose interfaces and bindings are *capable* of being defined, described, and discovered as XML artifacts" (emphasis mine) I think this is important, since for those late-bound services whose interface is described by an application protocol, WSDL is nowhere near capable enough to describe them. RFC 2616 isn't 175 pages long for the heck of it 8-); it really does take that much prose to describe the interface. That's why I think we can't require WSDL. But I still think our definition is ok, since RFC 2616 could conceivable be "mapped into XML" (whatever that means). And I'm also happy to continue to document a SOAP+WSDL centric architecture. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 15:23:40 UTC