W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > May 2009

Issue 6413 - just thinking

From: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 16:43:59 -0700
To: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5AAAA6322448AA41840FC4563A30D6E843A0748116@NA-EXMSG-C122.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On thinking about this issue some more...

It appears that the main goal behind the proposal to merge T and RT is to (correct me if I am wrong here):
"Strongly encourage" (but not force) implementers to use the fragment access standard, instead of building their own. The example of WS-MAN having defined its own fragment support is often quoted.  No one wants a proliferation of fragment specs.

It has also been stated that the status quo, moving RT forwards as a standalone W3C ratified standard which composes with Transfer, is not seen as strongly encouraging.

The proposed solution, adding basic fragment support into the T namespace and putting the fragment spec text as an appendix in the T spec, is seen as strongly encouraging.

It has also been stated that one of the main factors in encouraging people to use a particular spec is for the spec to be well written, have good value and have proven interop.  That is one way important to encourage usage, but that also seems to fall short of the required "strongly encourage" mark.

Since the merging the specs seems to split the WG fairly evenly (4-3), is there any other way to "strongly encourage", without resorting to merging the specs?  I am just trying to get people the think more creatively about possible approaches that everyone can live with here.  What if we:

1)      Added normative text in the Transfer spec such that implementers MUST use Fragment access spec if they need that functionality with transfer?  Would that be "strongly encouraging"?

2)      What if the RA WG went to the WS-MAN group and convinced them to add to their charter that they would implement fragment access when they adopted the WS-RA specs?  Would that be "strongly encouraging"?

3)      Marketing campaign: "Don't fragment fragments" :)

These are just idea starters, they are not Microsoft proposals.  One of the issues here is trying to understand what "strongly encourage" actually means.   Or, by definition, can one only "strongly encourage" by merging the specs together?  Should the WG also "strongly encourage" Eventing? :)

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 23:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:49 UTC