[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@Allegis.com]
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
<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.
|
