- From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:29:56 -0800
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> I tend to agree with dropping DR203. Perhaps the intent of this requirement > was to > ensure that the RPC convention did not utilize semantics dependent on a > particular > language or object system? If so, I think DR 201 covers this sufficiently by > requiring > straightforward mappings to languages and object systems. I disagree that this is covered in 201. Straitforward in no way implies interoperable. Creating a single binding will be trivial if the same implementer and model supplied the encoder and decoder. Creating a second, which has to try to interoperate with the first, may be a bigger challenge, and a third may be more problem, still. I can just see, for example, Microsoft arguing with IBM or Netscape over the way their particular RPC gateway bound to the wire protocol, and who is right. Creating a wire protocol that is not designed for interoperable bindings that can be tested is wrong, IMO. Ray Whitmer rayw@netscape.com
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 19:10:44 UTC