- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:33:34 -0500
- To: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@systinet.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>, Keith Ballinger <KeithBa@msn.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Jacek! I think as long as we keep XML infoset at the core of describing what goes into the messages, we can be "xml-centric" and explicitly not care about whether actual angle-brackets flow over whatever transport binding you happen to be using. --Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:11 AM > To: Jean-Jacques Moreau > Cc: David Booth; Keith Ballinger; www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: Re: Draft of Definitions > > > Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > > > Also, like David Orchard[3], I tend to think a definition > for Web-Service ought > > to contain the word "XML". > > Does this preclude HTTP GET and POST web services? We can take > web services generally as services accessible via the Web (no XML > mentioned here as it is not necessary) or as services accessible > via the XML Protocol (XML is mentioned). > > Personally, I'm not sure WSDL should care about the non-XML > services so I prefer the latter option. 8-) > > Best regards, > > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 08:24:53 UTC