- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:50:22 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > I certainly think that we must support other 'on the wire' formats and > non-SOAP messages, just as WSDL supports their binding. I personally agree ... just looking for suggested wording to keep this from becoming open-ended. Also, what do you mean by "supported?" Does that mean "shall not preclude" or does it mean "we'll produce (or suggest the production of) a normative non-XML binding"? > > So, a constraint I would propose is : Described by a WSDL document. Hmm, how about "Described by a WSDL document or another formal semantic at least as rich as WSDL." Or, given the WS Description group's charter's mention of RDF, is this implied by "WSDL"? [I raise this in order to keep the lid ON that can of worms, not top open it up!!!] Also, for my information, is WSDL defined in terms of XML syntax, or the Infoset?
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 18:50:55 UTC