W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 02:35:55 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803E00DC7@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
> Sent: 08 November 2004 10:18
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: David Orchard; Francisco Curbera; 
> public-ws-addressing@w3.org; Marc Hadley
> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
> 
> > > Not a very good approach to addressing issues in general
> > > though, is it?
> >
> > I'm not so sure. For example, has the world really been 
> well served by
> > where XSD ended up? Or would we have been better off having three
> > separate specs, one for each broad group that made up the Schema WG?
> > Obviously there is utility in standardizing certain things. 
> And just as
> > obviously, not everyone will want to use a particular spec. I think
> > that's actually OK.
> 
> The point is that WS-Addressing was developed by a group of 
> companies in
> private. 

And my point is that producing something from scratch in a WG does not
always result in a spec everyone is happy with.

Also, I thought anyone was welcome to participate in the
feedback/interop workshops...

> Those companies then took that specification to a 
> standards body.
> Now, if that group of companies push through the specification to
> standardization without openly addressing the issues raised 
> by another group
> of companies who weren't originally involved in its 
> development, then why
> bother going the "open standards" approach? 
> Why not just release the
> specification as is and make it a defacto standard?
> 
> The fact is that we're in a TC where votes count now. So 
> let's tackle each
> *reasonable* issue (and I think wsa:Action as optional is 
> reasonable) and
> vote on it. 

While I realise that voting on a per company basis is possible, I
*think* we're supposed to be concensus based. That said, on issues where
it's obvious no-one is going to 'cross the house' then perhaps the best
approach is to just vote and move on.

> How much more democractic can we get in this industry? 

Perhaps you are assuming that democracy always produces good
specifications. I'm sure that sometimes it does. I'm equally sure there
are instances where it does not.

> IMO
> that's far better for the industry as a whole than saying 
> (and I paraphrase
> here) "if you don't like it use something else".

It is a rare spec that makes everyone happy. I'd love to produce such a
spec in this WG. But I think a more realistic view is that the spec we
finally ship will NOT be such a beast. In terms of broad adoption, I
have some idea of who I need to make happy in order for the spec to be
widely implemented.

Gudge

> 
> My agenda is not to derail this standard effort. It's to get 
> something out
> that fits well into the other *standards* that are around and 
> with products
> that we are all using and/or developing.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> ----
> Mark Little,
> Chief Architect,
> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> 
> www.arjuna.com
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 10:36:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT