• From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@l...>
• To: Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:45:20 +0200

Andrew Layman wrote:
> 
> SOAP section five specifically provides serialization rules for entire
> objects or graphs of objects. Its use is not limited to method calls but is
> a general facility for serialization.

Wouldn't it be clearer to put section five into an own document, or 
to give it at least a name like SSF (SOAP Serialization Format) that 
can be simpler referenced than "SOAP section five"? (Oops, what does 
SSF actually mean - SOAP Serialization Format or SOAP Section five? :-)

My problem is: When I mention SOAP, I first need to explain 
that I do not mean HTTP+XML based RPC but the serialization format 
mentioned in section five of the spec...

Best,

Stefan

 


-- 
Stefan Haustein             
Univ. Dortmund, FB 4, LS 8   tel: +49 231 755 2499
Baroper Str. 301             fax: +49 231 755 5105
D-44221 Dortmund (Germany)   www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de

• References:
  • RE: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply to attributes?
    • From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...>

• Prev by Date: What is the relationship of product to enterprise? (RE: Joel on XML)
• Next by Date: Merging two XML Documents
• Previous by thread: RE: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply to attributes?
• Next by thread: RE: Default Namespaces - why don't they apply to attributes?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread