• To: <aarons@d...>,"'Paul Prescod'" <paul@p...>,"'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:50:19 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <008901c211c5$6368b070$0400a8c0@skonnardt20>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> If HTTP is an application protocol, I don't see how SOAP can't be one.

However high you go up the protocol stack, there is always room for
another layer above. One layer may be higher than another, but no-one
should ever claim to be at the top.

The word "application" of course simply means "a way of using
something". So if I'm a technologist in a particular space, the
application is the next layer up from me.

(I remember trying to persuade my networking colleagues that "file
transfer" was not an application...)

Michael Kay

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

• Prev by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• 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