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

RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

• To: 'Bill de hÓra' <dehora@e...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:47:44 -0600
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <001001c21223$aa9e94b0$887ba8c0@mitchum>
• Organization: DevelopMentor
• Reply-to: <aarons@d...>

> > Aaron Skonnard:
> >
> > If HTTP is an application protocol, I don't see how SOAP can't be...
 
First, I personally don't refer to SOAP as an "application protocol" but
rather as a "messaging framework". The terminology seems more precise
and accurate to me. I do, however, find SOAP conceptually similar to
HTTP so it just seemed strange to me that one would argue so heavily
against any similarity. 

> From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:dehora@e...] 
>
> Let me help you. Well known headers. Well known methods. An
> addressing model worth a damn. SOAP has none of these.

It depends on the definition of "application protocol". 

> The intersection between an application protocol and SOAP does not
> make SOAP an application protocol. That's practically a fallacy of
> composition.

It's a fallacy of composition to draw the conclusion that an
"application protocol" MUST have the characteristics you list above just
because most of the commonly-thought-of application protocols share
those characteristics.

-aaron
http://staff.develop.com/aarons
 

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

• 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: SOAP, XSD, and HTTP
• Next by thread: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread