RE: Plan B: fundamental contraints and scope

Everything I saw in that had at least a <soap> somewhere.  That's a
little more wordy than just an HTTP-TYPE that is an image, isn't it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 3:23 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Plan B: fundamental contraints and scope


> there is no XML involved whatsoever

That's what you think ;-). See the proposal currently discussed in the
XMLP WG for including binary attachments in the SOAP Infoset at [1].

Ugo

[1] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/mgudgin/paswa/paswa.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 12:20 PM
> To: Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Plan B: fundamental contraints and scope
> 
> 
> 
> Would it make sense to add my Image thing, or Mike's
> elaboration of it?
> That is interesting, I think, because there is no XML involved
> whatsoever and yet there is a formally descibable interface and it is
> intended for app-to-app use.
> 
> I am afraid that I find your constraints a bit cryptic,
> particularly the
> one involving description.  In words, however, I personally see a big
> distinction between "services" that have a described, stable interface
> intended for use by an application and those (like web pages intended
> for humans) that do not.  I don't think that this has anything to do
> with WSDL per se -- conformance to WSDL seems to me to be a different
> issue.
>

Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 16:27:58 UTC