RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding

 I'll leave this to the group to decide. Just a few minor points 
to consider:
 1) there is no guarantee that there is more than 'this time' -
the WG is chartered to finish by the end of the year (the current
charter at the website says April 2002, but I think there was an
extension)
 2) SOAP 1.1, while using HTTP, used it to "tunnel" a universal
protocol through HTTP; SOAP 1.2 does not do this (at least the
spec suggests that tunneling should be avoided) so SOAP 1.2 is
limited; now even if we're certain SOAP will continue with
further versions, the development is clear - from a universal
protocol to a web protocol - and a year or more after SOAP 1.2 is
Recommended it will be hard to say "here's a universal protocol 
again".
 We may decide to say that SOAP 1.2 by W3C is meant to be a web 
protocol and that a universal transport binding is out of scope 
and that we will support for example an effort from IETF or other 
party to produce a universal transport binding.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:

 > 
 > 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 04:59:37 UTC