Re: TIP uses XML?

"Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:15:49AM -0500, Ken MacLeod wrote:
> > I think it'd be good to seperate out protocols that are XML based
> > from those that are XML compatible (notably to include MIME [HTTP,
> > SMTP]), at least as a basis for discussion.
> 
> moved TIP below the Non-XML protocols marker.
> 
> How should I handle protocols what use XML in their messaging layer
> but keep the payload opaque (like ICE)? What would be most useful for
> folks?

Since there is quite an overlap between the two, I would suggest just
using a facet to describe it.

I think if we confine the "serialization" facet to _just_ payload*
then we can remove the serialization facet from those protocols that
carry opaque data.  It would be a similar case to remove
"serialization" from protocols that don't, per se, carry payloads
(Jabber).  Some protocols (SOAP) define a serialization but also
provide an escape for other payloads (that just use SOAP's
messaging/RPC envelope).

(* a standard serialization format can be used/applied in envelope and
headers as well, but I think the serialization facet should only be
applied to payload.)

I'd like to hear more comments before I review the table and suggest
changes.

  -- Ken

Received on Saturday, 22 April 2000 11:58:53 UTC