Re: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>
>  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).

Surely the SOAP Encoding conventions are useful for RESTful applications?
(although that's only a small piece of SOAP 1.2 itself...)

Dan


>  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 15:08:28 UTC