• From: Michael Fitzgerald <mike@w...>
• To: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:32:33 -0800

So when you say "protocol," are you referring to the SOAP
Envelope/Header/Body rather than transport protocols such as HTTP and SMTP?
And when you say "data serialization," are you referring to the encoding
schema http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ alone?

I think of SOAP as a lightweight but convenient protocol when, e.g., any
direct child of Body is processed as a distinct document (ala BizTalk).
Mashing some things together has its advantages. When would it be a
detriment?

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: David Megginson [mailto:david@m...]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 9:44 AM
To: Michael Fitzgerald
Cc: xml-dev
Subject: RE: RDF vs. SOAP serialization (oh yeah, and XMI and XTM)


Michael Fitzgerald writes:

 > What do you exactly mean by "the SOAP spec mixes protocol and format"?

It defines two things mixed together -- a data-serialization format,
and a protocol for exchaning that information.  By comparison, note
how important it is that HTML and HTTP are specified separately
(people ended up using HTTP for a lot more than just HTML, and ended
up using HTML in many non-HTTP environments).


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

• References:
  • RE: RDF vs. SOAP serialization (oh yeah, and XMI and XTM)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Academia needed the Web (Re: Success factors for the WebandSemanticWeb)
• Next by Date: RE: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)
• Previous by thread: RE: RDF vs. SOAP serialization (oh yeah, and XMI and XTM)
• Next by thread: RE: RDF vs. SOAP serialization (oh yeah, and XMI and XTM)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread