- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:04:04 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- cc: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Rich,
in my understanding yes, encoding is also a thing that "is not
core". But actually neither is HTTP binding beccause it doesn't
preclude other bindings, or even other bindings to HTTP. So HTTP
"should be moved into a separate document", too.
In order to minimalize the number of documents, there was some
agreement on the last RPC TF telecon that the WG could produce
two documents:
1) the core, which all SOAP processors MUST implement in order
to be compliant,
2) a set of recommended normative extensions (not in the
abstract model sense) - the HTTP binding, data encoding, RPC,
possibly a correlation extension etc.
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox
http://www.idoox.com/
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Rich Salz wrote:
> +1 to what Jacek wrote.
>
> I supose this means that Sec5 should be moved into a separate document,
> too? Or -- for interoperability purposes -- should we require all SOAP
> implementations to understand sec5 encoding?
>
> > +1 with Marc's change. I wasn't against visibly removing RPC from
> > the core of SOAP, I just didn't like the term "extension" used
> > here. 8-)
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 14:04:06 UTC