[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s act

• To: 'Michael Brennan' <Michael_Brennan@A...>, "'Roger L. Costello'" <costello@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:11:46 -0600

I don't disagree.  But if you have to send the intent, pick one.  
Our lives are simpler and longer if we can agree on basic gestures when 
downing a mammoth or deciding which of us gets to talk to 
the red-haired girl first.   

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@A...]

> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]

<snip/>

> We are about to walk straight back into the Doctype over PI 
> over attvalue in the root discussion.

Well, since I am firmly in the camp of insisting there is no inherent
doctype in a document, I should emphasize that the "intent" of a message is
not something inherent in the syntax of a message viewed in isolation.
However, a document has no notion of a corresponding response, either, yet
web services need such a correlation. Web services need abstractions that go
beyond the syntax of a document viewed in isolation, and when considered in
this context, a message needs a way to convey an intent that is not simply
up to the interpretation of any consumer.

I don't think you can completely decouple the intent of a message at the web
service layer from syntactic constructs used to convey that intent. One can
certainly debate, though, over the mechanisms used to convey that intent.

• Prev by Date: Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented vs action-oriented
• Next by Date: Getting rid of entities (was: misprocessing namespaces)
• Previous by thread: RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented vs action-oriented
• Next by thread: RE: looking for XML vendor in Santa Clara
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread