RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite)

+1
Dana,
The fact is that 'other efforts' have started 'elsewhere' intending to
support that encoding by default simply because it exists,
not because it is good, bad, or required/not-required. The fact that it *is
there*, essentially means
in practice that it *is* soap, as you indicate. It should be seperate.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Daniela Florescu <daniela.florescu@propel.com>@w3.org on 07/31/2001
12:07:05 PM

Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org


To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Daniela Florescu
      <daniela.florescu@propel.com>
cc:   "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@zolera.com>, costello@mitre.org,
      xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite)



Doug,

I am maybe to picky but I think that
even the text you cite is misleading:
I understand from here that this encoding *is*
Soap and other ones are *not* Soap, but tolerated.
What I would like to read here is that Soap has
*no* special encoding and all encoding are
equally accepted, i.e. I would not want this particular
encoding to have a privilege status inside Soap.
Moreover, I would like to see this section moved out
of the core Soap specification because I don't think
it belongs there.

Is this reasonable?

Best regards,
Dana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:41 AM
> To: Daniela Florescu
> Cc: 'Rich Salz'; costello@mitre.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite)
>
>
> ok, I'm a bit confused, section 5 says:
>   Use of the data model and encoding style described in
>   this section is encouraged but not required; other data
>   models and encodings can be used in conjunction with SOAP
>
> doesn't this clearly state that people can do their own
> encoding.  I read this to imply that the spec is just laying
> out one that people can use if they want to use a "common"
> one - and even at that it's just a suggestion.
> This doesn't change whether it could be in a different
> non-core doc - but some people seemed to be implying that
> this encoding style was "required" and I believe it clearly
> states that it is not.
> -Dug
>
>
> Daniela Florescu <daniela.florescu@propel.com>@w3.org on 07/31/2001
> 12:14:50 PM
>
> Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
>
>
> To:   "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@zolera.com>, costello@mitre.org,
>       xml-dist-app@w3.org
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite)
>
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 16:02:56 UTC