W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2004

RE: What does http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP identify?

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:27:12 -0800
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hp.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c3dc66$bee6af70$741e11ac@beasys.com>

It seems to me that one way of looking at this is compatibility between the
resources.  SOAP 1.2 has compatibility language wrt SOAP 1.1, so there is a
notion of compatibility there.  One could argue that SOAP 1.2 is a
compatible evolution from 1.1 and thus the resource has simply evolved and
the name shouldn't change.

If we have "blown" the issue of compatible evolution of a URI, then I think
we should figure out the right way forward in general rather than hack
something architecturally inconsistent.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:05 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Mark Baker; Martin Gudgin; Williams, Stuart; www-tag@w3.org;
> fallside@us.ibm.com
> Subject: RE: What does http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP identify?
>
>
>
> Dare Obasanjo writes:
>
> >> I find it quite irritating that the
> >> SOAP working group did not follow
> >> the practices of other working
> >> groups such as XML Query working group
> >> and choose a new URI for the subsequent version.
>
> I'm curious, when and if XML 1.1 goes to recommendation status, do we
> expect that http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml will be redirected
> to point to
> 1.1?  I would have thought so.
>
> The SOAP situation seems quite parallel.  It would have been
> possible for
> someone 3 years go to have made the statement that
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml does not consider Unicode NEL
> (#x85) as a new line character".  That statement would in
> retrospect have been
> true for some time, but would become wrong at the time the URI was
> redirected to XML 1.1.  No doubt the changes from SOAP 1.1 to
> SOAP 1.2 are
> somewhat more extensive, notably the change of namespace, but
> SOAP 1.2 is
> very much a successor to SOAP 1.1, with almost identical
> overall features
> and use cases.
>
> There is indeed a serious practical issue in this particular
> case having
> to do with the large number of existing publications that have used
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml to refer specifically to SOAP 1.1.  In
> retrospect, I believe that we dug a hole 3 years ago, at
> which time we
> should have assigned:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP -> Latest version of SOAP, moves
> from SOAP 1.1
> to SOAP 1.2 as recommendations are published
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP1.1 -> Changes only for bug fixes
> and errata to
> 1.1
>
> or some such.
>
> We didn't do that, so now there's a problem.
>
> It may be that keeping TR/SOAP for SOAP 1.1 is the least of
> the evils in
> practice at this point, but I don't think it's much of a
> precedent for how
> to do things right.  I think that in principle there's
> nothing wrong with
> the redirection that XMLP has proposed to do.  In future, I think the
> guidance should be:  "when first publishing a spec that's
> likely to have a
> future, create and document URIs that will usefully
> distinguish the latest
> versions of all forms that are likely to be of interest
> moving forward, as
> well as URIs in date space that uniquely identify each version as
> published."
>
> By the way, I've also seen a proposal from Chris Ferris to have
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP take you to a page that gives you a
> choice of
> specs.  Not ideal, but certainly another option.  As I say,
> we blew it
> when SOAP first came out, so now all the choices are compromises.
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> 01/16/04 11:30 AM
>
>
>         To:     <www-tag@w3.org>, "Mark Baker"
> <distobj@acm.org>, "Williams, Stuart"
> <skw@hp.com>
>         cc:     "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, (bcc: Noah
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        RE: What does
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP identify?
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
> >On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> >Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 4:49 AM
> >To: Williams, Stuart
> >Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> >Subject: Re: What does http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP identify?
> >
> >
> >FWIW, if you consult the Google Oracle for backlinks ...
> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=o
> >ff&c2coff=1&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FSOAP&btnG=G
> >oogle+Search
> >
> >You'll see that most of those pages use the URI to refer to
> >SOAP 1.1, rather than "SOAP in general".
>
> In fact Googling for "SOAP 1.1" brings up
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP  as
> the first URI returned. I find it quite irritating that the
> SOAP working
> group did not follow the practices of other working groups such as XML
> Query working group and choose a new URI for the subsequent version.
>
> PS: By the way, this points out an inconsistency in URI
> naming policies
> by the W3C.
>
> --
> PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
> Entropy isn't what it used to be.
>
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 14:26:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT