W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Proposed Venn Diagrams

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:33:15 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405A964E1@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 10:48 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Venn Diagrams
> True, but I think B is much too large relative to C.  The 
> vast majority
> of the Web uses uniform interface semantics.

I should probably put a note that the relative sizes are not meant to be
significant, but are constrained by the geometry of representing overlaps.
Of course, anyone who has some more than rudimentary graphic skills (not to
mention complete color vision) is welcome to tweak these.

But on to the substantive point ...[baiting hook; casting line; fishing for

Uhh, do all those CGI scripts on the Web use "uniform interface semantics"?
If so (because they are accessed via HTTP POST, I presume) what makes HTML
forms more "uniform" in their semantics than SOAP messages?  And if the
scripts/cookies/app servers/etc. are in B but not C, then is B really much
too large relative to C?  

> Right, but then the interface is no longer declared with XML 
> (gasp! 8-),
> it's declared with HTTP, so "XML Interface Services" isn't an accurate
> description of what's going on.  Perhaps that's not such a 
> big deal, but
> it could be a point of confusion.  Maybe a footnote would help.

Yeah, good point.  That's what comes from midnight inspirations, consistency
suffers.  I do agree that since I make such a big deal out of the value that
XML brings to the picture in the text, I need to put it in the picture
somehow.  And anyway, we can definitely come up with a better label for
"Circle F" 
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 11:33:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:51 UTC