(Fwd) RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite)

Hello,

But the use of Section 5 encoding is purely optional... even for 
RPC. There seems to be some confusion on this point.

RC

> I don't think it is a naive comment at all.
> In fact, I strongly agree with Roger and
> I support the idea that the WG should 
> seriously consider to toss the section 5, 
> or to put it in a different (non mandatory)
>  document.
> 
> The way I wrap the internal data of my application
> (PL/SQL or Cobol for example because I am a database person)
> into an XML document is my own internal business,
> and I think it is inappropriate for a W3C WG to
> standardize on this. In fact, section 5 does not help
> me at all in this task, it just provides noise that
> makes my task more difficult.
> 
> >From my own experience, none of the companies that
> I know or work with seriously consider to use the
> information in Section 5 when they map their internal
> data into Soap message bodies. Thinking that
>  they will do is naive.
> 
> My 3 cents and a half,
> Dana
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@zolera.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 7:27 PM
> > To: costello@mitre.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite)
> > 
> > 
> > By design, SOAP enables both structured-data and xml-document 
> > exchange. 
> > Just because you find the latter completely sufficient is no 
> > reason cut
> > the bar in half. :)
> > 
> > So yes, I'd say it's a naive comment.
> > 	/r$
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
> > Encryption)
> > http://www.zolera.com
> > 


------- End of forwarded message -------

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 13:44:54 UTC