RE: Announce: A brief history of SOAP

If I send you a message such as 

	<Translate>
		<gamma>123.45</gamma>
		<epsilon>.67</epsilon>
		<pi>3.14159</pi>
	</Translate>

then you presumably either have somehow got some idea what this message
means and what its structure is etc., or you don't and cannot process it
(except as generic XML).  However you got the knowledge, that was the
metadata.  

In the case of the messages sent to the "SOAP Validator" at UserLand's
site, the documentation describing the messages is the metadata.

I don't think you can do much without some metadata.  The only issue is
the form that the metadata takes, largely whether it is in a standard
form or not.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:31 PM
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: Announce: A brief history of SOAP


Andrew I don't know enough about the kinds of environments you use, but
I'm
with Fredrik on this. We do just fine without any meta data. No
"requires"
here. Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Layman" <andrewl@microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: Announce: A brief history of SOAP


> I think that the point is that any exchange of messages via SOAP (or
> otherwise) requires that the parties have mutual access to some sort
of
> metadata describing the types of the data being exchanged.  WSDL
> provides such metadata in an implementation-neutral way that supports
> and leverages the W3C specifications such as Schema.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fredrik Lundh [mailto:fredrik@pythonware.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:35 AM
> To: Box, Don
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Announce: A brief history of SOAP
>
>
> > You can read it at http://www.develop.com/dbox/postsoap.html
>
>     "Does SOAP/XML Messaging make sense without something like
>     WSDL? No way"
>
> huh?  I've got lots of users for my python soap implementation,
> and now you're saying that what they do doesn't make sense?
>
> what have we missed?
>
> Cheers /F
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 18:47:18 UTC