Re: SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data format

 Dan, 

 in my opinion SOAP Encoding is in a similar relationship to
documents as XML. It should not be compared to HTML, for example 
(not saying you did do such a comparison). 

 As far as I know, it is not expected, but not prohibited either,
that SOAP Encoding will be used for data outside SOAP Envelopes.  
I don't think it would be unreasonable of somebody to encode
their data structures using SOAP Encoding.

 Your question shows again the slight inappropriateness of XMLP
WG doing a graph data encoding, it might be best to remove SOAP
Encoding from SOAP spec and put it elsewhere (it might or might
not compete with XML or RDF), but our charter says we have to
provide such encoding for graph data.

 As for REST, I think the standard should be just plain XML. 8-)

 Best regards,
                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Dan Brickley wrote:

 > 
 > 
 > Quick question(s):
 > 
 > Is it the intent of this WG that SOAP Encoding (and
 > associated datamodel) be deployable as a "stand alone" data format for
 > Web documents? (ie. deployed in the HTTP-GETable web alongside XHTML, SVG,
 > MathML, SMIL etc., as well as in protocol exchanges).
 > 
 > Could (for example) Google's indexer expect to stumble across a filetree
 > full of SOAP Encoding XML files? Would it be reasonable to anticipate
 > writing HTML or X-Link hyperlinks that points to HTTP GET'able URIs which
 > dereference to SOAP-Encoding? Might one create a Web site with data
 > exposed in Encoding, rendered to XHTML clientside using a browser's
 > built-in XSLT support?
 > 
 > I expect the answer is "people can use it for whatever they find it useful
 > for". From spending a little time looking at SOAP Encoding, my
 > expectation is that we _will_ see it used in these contexts, and that this
 > might address some of the concerns associated with the 'REST' slogan...
 > 
 > Dan
 > 
 > 
 >

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 14:02:31 UTC