• To: <aarons@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:26:24 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <001301c21338$511c4a20$887ba8c0@mitchum>

> No it's not. I'm still interested in how you can say "If HTTP 
> is an application protocol, I don't see how SOAP can't be". 
> Did you imply a messaging framework when you said application 
> protocol?

Aaron, I should qualify my question. To me, a messaging framework means
plumbing, an application protocol means meaning. If you like, a
messaging framework gets water to my sink, an application protocol lets
me decide on temperature. If we have different understandings of the
terms it's possible we're talking past each other.

Bill de hÓra

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>

• References:
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>

• Prev by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Previous by thread: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by thread: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread