OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Hash: SHA1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:aarons@develop.com] 
> If you drop the SOAP encoding rules (section 5), which many 
> now consider to be deprecated by XML Schema, SOAP essentially 
> codifies the following:

> 1. Framing and extensibility (via headers)

HTTP has this with standard headers to boot.

> 2. Standard representation for errors

HTTP has standard response codes.

> 3. Binding for sending messages over HTTP

HTTP doesn't require a binding; it's an application protocol.

> 4. Binding for mapping messages to RPC

HTTP has standard methods. 

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

Let me help you. Well known headers. Well known methods. An
addressing model worth a damn. SOAP has none of these.

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

> SOAP as it sits today doesn't give you much in terms of 
> interoperability benefit simply because there are no standard 
> headers. 


> HTTP wouldn't be much of a protocol either if you throw out 
> all the headers.

Saying that SOAP might be an application protocol some day as and
when standard headers appear, does not make SOAP an application
protocol today. If HTTP didn't have well understood headers it
wouldn't be much of an app protocol either (putting methods and
addressing to one side for now). Indeed it would be much like SOAP,
except you can send a wider range of data through it with less

So why you'd want to run SOAP in its current state over HTTP when
you have HTTP remains something of a mystery. It's a bit like
shackling a a mountain bike to the roof of an 4x4, driving the 4x4
around and calling it mountainbiking. 

> > Paul Prescod
> > The nice thing is that you can just wrap up your XML messages
> > in SOAP envelopes and bodies and you don't have to change 
> > anything else. You'll be 100% buzzword compliant without
> > improving  interoperability one whit.

Well, to be precise, you can't even do that:
SOAP's dealing with an XML profile after all.

Bill de hÓra

Version: PGP 7.0.4



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS