- From: Octav Chipara <ochipara@cse.unl.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:06:47 -0600
- To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
- cc: XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Martin Gudgin wrote: > Presumably the the phrase 'Any protocol binding to HTTP must respect the > semantics of HTTP and should demonstrate that it can interoperate with > existing HTTP applications.' is stating that the binding must demonstrate > interop rather than XP itself? > > Also, I don't understand the phrase 'a subset of HTTP that is compatible > with pre-XP Internet browser technology.' > > Having a normative binding to HTTP is a 'good thing'. I think it would also > be good to have other bindings defined, perhaps non-normatively in the base > XP spec, perhaps normatively in other specs layered on top of XP. I think > the main problem with having only a *single* normative binding is that > people will assume ( wrongly ) that XP is tied to that protocol. > > Gudge > IF we are going to provide in the specifications more than one example of binding we would solve resonably this problem. In this way nobody would think that XP is actually binded to any transport protocols and we would have to valuable scenarious of how to bind to different transport protocols. One of the has to be HTTP.... - Octav
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 00:06:53 UTC