- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
- To: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Henrik, I like and support what you propose here, and while mostly complete, I believe it to be missing one important feature. As I discussed in my proposal for two HTTP bindings[1], I suggest that we need a means for unambiguously identifying when a protocol (including RPC) is being tunneled over an application protocol, versus when it inherits the application semantics of that protocol. The binding model seems like the right place to specify this. Obviously it can't specify the syntax because that will have to vary depending upon the application protocol. But it should mandate (or otherwise facilitate, should the model itself not be normative) that syntax be consistent for each protocol, not just each binding. e.g. HTTP bindings may choose to use application/soap+tunnel+xml versus application/soap+xml (which, coincidentally, I am suggesting we use for our HTTP bindings). FWIW, this could be represented as a "property" per your proposal (say, "IS_TUNNELING"), and should be defined by us at a w3.org namespace. But the important part is somehow ensuring consistency of syntax for any given application protocol. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jul/0241.html MB
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 01:03:30 UTC