• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Traditional RPC
• From: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:48:56 -0800
• References: <F0XRRNVP2YVP1XSOMZWZXYXA6FD5YVS.3c7025d1@MChamp> <06c901c1b809$155ac050$33a1dc40@murphy> <3C704973.14090ADF@p...>

>>"ASCII" and a few other things like that.

Yeah that's the bug in an otherwise pretty good spec.

Most people ignore it. I do.

BTW, thanks for the positive energy -- I feel much better about this stuff
now that it isn't all or nothing, as some people have cast it in the past.

I will look for an opportunity to define an interface, in public, both ways.

Dave

• References:
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>
  • Re: Traditional RPC
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace and URIs
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Previous by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread