W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2002

Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:14:29 -0700
Cc: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
Message-Id: <19975889-56FF-11D6-BC91-000393753936@apache.org>
> Please review the charter of the XML Protocol working group. It explicitly
> says that the XML Protocol should be based on SOAP 1.1 This isn't a 
> request
> to rubber stamp SOAP 1.1. We want and need to improve SOAP, but we don't
> want to make a complete change to its architecture. I'm also pointing out
> some basic realities. W3C is, at heart, an academic organization. And its
> perfectly reasonable for W3C to pursue its academic goals (REST and the
> Semantic Web). But if W3C wants to play a major role in business systems,
> and if W3C wants to continue receiving funding from the big software
> vendors, then the W3C TAG must be willing to accomodate the requirements 
> of
> big business. If the REST faction continues to try to undermine the 
> existing
> Web services architecture, it will alienate big business.

Hmmm, well, speaking as an academic and an open source developer AND a
commercial software developer, I can say with authority that the W3C
was created by big businesses specifically to prevent their own marketing
departments from destroying the value inherent in the Web through their
own, and their competitors', short-sighted, quarterly-revenue-driven
pursuit of profits.  It was not created by academics.  Open source
developers actively opposed the creation of a pay-to-play consortium.
The only reason it is at MIT is because that's what was needed to
attract the people with a clue to an underpaid job.

If we are to remain silent on this issue, then the W3C should not exist.

The Web creates more business value, every day, than has been generated
by every single example of an RPC-like interface in the entire history
of computers.  Businesses would have to be collectively insane to place
that architecture at risk just because a group of software marketing
giants claims that it is the next big wave.  They want people who are
experts on the Web architecture to stand up and defend it when needed.

The only reason SOAP remains in the W3C for standardization is because
all of the other forums either rejected the concept out of hand or
refused to rubber-stamp a poor implementation of a bad idea.
If this thing is going to be called Web Services, then I insist that
it actually have something to do with the Web.  If not, I'd rather
have the WS-I group responsible for abusing the marketplace with yet
another CORBA/DCOM than have the W3C waste its effort pandering to
the whims of marketing consultants.  I am not here to accommodate the
requirements of mass hysteria.


Cheers,

Roy T. Fielding, Chairman, The Apache Software Foundation
                  (fielding@apache.org)  <http://www.apache.org/>

                  Chief Scientist, Day Software
                  2 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150
                  Newport Beach, CA 92660-7929   fax:+1.949.644.5064
                  (roy.fielding@day.com) <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 17:28:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:57 GMT