RE: Draft of Definitions

 Glen,
 do you imagine us saying exactly what is the mapping of the
infoset into HTTP GET query parameters or HTTP POST form data?
 If this is the case, I won't object. If this is not the case, 
I'll hate it because the mapping will be proprietary and there 
will be no WSDL interoperability in these bindings. Oh, isn't 
this the status quo? 8-)
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Glen Daniels wrote:

 > 
 > 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 08:28:32 UTC