W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2001

Re: Integrating XP Into Web Infrastructure

From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@canada.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 10:37:04 -0500
Message-ID: <3A5B3020.488AA92A@canada.sun.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
CC: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "'Kurt Cagle'" <cagle@olywa.net>, XML-DIST-APP <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Extracting the information from the HTML would be pretty tedious, though, and
> > prone to breaking.  Eventually you would want a generic sort of technique that
> > service providers and developers could all count on so that each "hookup"
> > wouldn't have to be negotiated individually.  At that point you would just
> > invent XML-RPC :-)
> Or just plain XML? Or plain text? We can still make HTTP GET requests for
> XML, you know. ;-)


> > So SOAP will often be used for synchronous calls to an individual
> > method, but I also hope it will be used just as much for asynchronous
> > message passing that may or may not invoke one or more actions on the
> > receiving end.
> I totally understand this -- SOAP had benefits and plain HTTP has benefits.
> That's not the question. The question is what is the XP's position on the
> issue.

See http://www.w3.org/2000/09/XML-Protocol-Charter

My reading of that says that we do both.

> Pretty much, yeah. But also the fact that most SOAP implementations live at
> a specific URI. While SOAP may be able to be sent in many different ways,
> the fact of the matter is its generally being done using POSTs to a single
> URI receiver.
> Many folks feel this is wrong. What does the WG feel?

Well, as long as SOAP is used to cleanly *extend* POST semantics, is
there a problem with it not having a GET binding?  I understand your
point, but sometimes POST *is* the right answer.

Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2001 10:34:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:30 UTC