<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Kopretinka: Comments on How exactly is SSDL better than WSDL?</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jacek.cz/blog/archives/2005/02/how_exactly_is/" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.jacek.cz/blog/archives/000055-comments.xml" />
  <id>http://www.jacek.cz/blog/comments.xml</id>
  <updated>2005-02-18T04:13:50Z</updated>
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.31</generator>
 
<entry>
  <title>Comment by Jim Webber</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.jacek.cz/blog/archives/2005/02/how_exactly_is/#comment-183" />
  <id>http://www.jacek.cz/blog/archives/2005/02/how_exactly_is/#comment-183</id>
  
  <published>2005-02-18T04:13:50Z</published>
  <updated>2005-02-18T04:13:50Z</updated>
  
  <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Jacek:</p>

<p>The point about SSDL is that it assumes Web Services use SOAP as the unit of message transfer (delivered over arbitrary protocols). Therefore there is no perceived need (as there was in WSDL) to support a wealth of different bindings. Given how much of a commodity SOAP is, and how it has been so widely embraced I feel this is a very pragmatic approach.</p>

<p>Jim</p>]]></content>
  <author>
      <name>Jim Webber</name>
      <uri>http://jim.webber.name</uri>
  </author>
</entry>

</feed> 
