- From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 13:03:15 -0700
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Noah, > I think you may have a point, therefore now I can see it equally both >ways - moving the mention in 2.1.1 or keeping it in RPC. Using SHOULD >could be OK, as I said there's no interop problems involved (because the >XML form is the interface) and a MUST would be unenforcable here. > > Not only unenforcable but undesirable in certain cases, FWIW: If I have two language environments visible to each other via some common language binding, and these languages have already-established ways of dealing with differences in legal naming syntax to map between one language and another, you would hope that invoking SOAP on the same objects from the two languages would map to the same set of names underneath, at least I think I would. This is not likely to be possible were the constructs as seen in each language forced to map using only this other mapping that did not take the built-in mapping between the languages into account -- if we even had a way to enforce it, as you point out. So I am happy with SHOULD, too. Ray Whitmer rayw@netscape.com
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 16:03:46 UTC