- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:56:05 +0600
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: "Agarwal, Naresh" <nagarwal@informatica.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
"Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org> writes: > > Yes. WS-I discouraged its use, and WSDL 1.2 used that as rationale to > > drop it. > > And it only became a W3C recommendation less than a month ago. > Fickle fashion! ;) Its an "adjunct" part of SOAP 1.2. WSDL 1.2 still supports it; what it has moved away from is the notion of having a logical schema and an encoded schema. If you want to write a schema which follows SOAPEnc concepts that just find and dandy and supported by WSDL 1.2. (WSDL 1.2 is still a working draft, so nothing at all is committed until .. well, the cows come home at the rate we're going ;-(.) > Am I the only one who finds SOAP Encoding to have potential? I guess mostly > because it has a data model almost isomorphic to RDF's, so I don't see > it as necessarily being bound to RPC and lazy 'myobject.toXML()' coding > style... Yes, I do realize the value in having a logical schema and being able to pick different encodings for it. However, it does bring in some complexity and hence I too supported removing it. Schema's limitations w.r.t. graphs is a bit annoying. However, its not unusable. Life will go on. Sanjiva.
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2003 01:56:33 UTC