RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding

I guess 'out-of-scope' is not strictly true. How about 'out-of-scope at
this time'?

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:09 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
> 
> 
> 
>  Hi all, 8-)
>  it will be a pity if SOAP, as provided by the W3C, is limited to 
> RESTful application (because we don't want to promote RESTless 
> applications over HTTP, do we?) 
>  I don't think the charter imposes such a limitation, and I 
> have yet to see an example of a RESTful application which is 
> benefited by using SOAP (as opposed to HTTP alone).  It may 
> come down to the question of why it's W3C and not IETF who 
> works on SOAP, but I'm not trying to propose that W3C drop 
> the XML Protocol effort.
>  Best regards,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
>  > 
>  > I propose that we rule this[1] out-of-scope and close it 
> with no action.  > 
>  > Gudge
>  > 
>  > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x301
>  > 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 04:36:06 UTC