- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 09:09:28 -0700
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>> There should be no additional >> semantics defined by the binding because the places where we add >> semantics is either as SOAP extensions or as underlying protocols. > >That may be a point of difference. But what should the mechanisms be for defining semantics as part of the binding? Unless we define a separate processing model for the binding, a separate mechanism for identifying features, a separate mechanism for defining faults, etc. then there is no framework within which I can define such semantics. What I am proposing is to say the following: Look, in SOAP we define a protocol framework that is especially targeted the XML community. It defines a processing model, an extensibility model and all that good stuff needed for building distributed applications. However, we all know that SOAP and XML are not alone in the world - there are plenty of existing protocols and infrastructure around. In order to allow SOAP based applications to take advantage of such services and features, we allow SOAP to be bound to various other protocols in as straightforward a way as possible. This gives us what we want in that it allows SOAP applications to use a variety of underlying protocols without us having to define a new complex "binding language" that can support extensibility etc. >> Semantics defined by the binding is not defined as part of underlying >> protocols and not defined within the extensibility mechanism of SOAP. >> In other words we have no good way to talk about it in terms of >> processing model, extensibility model etc. Henrik
Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 12:20:50 UTC