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

From
Aaron Skonnard <>
To
'Bill de hÓra' <>,
Date
2002-06-12T21:47:44Z
ID
<00e901c2125a$c88d3850$0400a8c0@skonnardt20>
Thread
RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
> > 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:] 
>
> 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