- From: <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:48:38 -0500 (EST)
- To: chrisfer@us.ibm.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Chris, Sorry I missed Noah's early posting in January before our task force telcon on the topic. I wasn't suggesting going in a direction counter to the SOAP WG. My point is that the model has architectural implications. Also, if the SOAP group thought the idea had some merit and might be an appropriate consideration for follow-on work in SOAP, it would also be in-scope for us since we have a role in (re-)chartering decisions. I've heard Noah comment on this a number of times, and I think his sentiments were more along the lines of "too late for SOAP 1.2" and "interesting, but would need more investigation". In any case, there is no consensus yet in XMLP to be "counter to". --mark Mark A. Jones AT&T Labs -- Strategic Standards Division Shannon Laboratory Room 2A02 180 Park Ave. Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 email: jones@research.att.com phone: (973) 360-8326 fax: (973) 236-6453 To: www-ws-arch@w3.org From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:31:59 -0500 Subject: Re: SOAP message infoset Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com phone: +1 508 234 3624 Mark Jones wrote on 02/14/2003 03:15:22 PM: <snip/> > > Even if the XMLP group does not endorse this model for integration > into its SOAP 1.2 work, it seems like the ideas are worth considering > from an architectural point of view and of possible relevance to > follow-on work in SOAP. Hmmm... I'm not so certain I'd agree. I think that Noah's post[1] on this subject should have been referenced as well. I don't thinks we should consider going in a direction that is counter to that of a sister WG. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jan/0059.html
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 10:49:10 UTC