RE: Draft of Definitions

Jacek:

I think the right answer to your question is "if the working group decides to address it".  I haven't looked at the charter recently, so I don't know if this is in-scope, but if it's something the WG wants to do, I'd be for it.  That said, I still think it's appropriate from a design sense to separate the concerns of abstract message description and binding-related serializations.  An HTTP GET/POST binding would be a great example of how it's possible to use non angle-bracket serializations along with our description language!

--Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:28 AM
> To: Glen Daniels
> Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau; David Booth; Keith Ballinger;
> www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: 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 08:39:08 UTC