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

RE: D-AG0010: Use XML

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:07:57 -0500
To: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Might I suggest:

"uses XML where appropriate."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 5:03 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: D-AG0010: Use XML
> This message kicks off discussion on goal 10, use of XML (affectionately
> known as XML world domination ;-).  Please comment on goal
> wording, success
> factors.
> The goal as stated
> "D-AG0010
> uses W3C XML technologies in the development of the web services
> architecture to the extent that this is compatible with the overall goals
> listed here"
> Discussion:
> -----------
> I think this should be
> "uses XML.". I can live with "is XML based"
> 1. The word "technologies" does not add value to the simple goal of uses
> XML.  I don't see "uses XML technologies" being better than "uses XML".
> 2. The words "in the development of the web services architecture" is
> redundant.  We don't need to put this in every goal.
> 3. The words "to the extent that this is compatible with the overall goals
> listed here" is redundant.  Each and every goal is met wrt to other goals.
> We could use these words with every other goal.
> 4. What are "XML technologies" or what is "XML"?  Is this XML
> element/attribute, XML Infoset, XML 1.0 + namespaces, XPath 1.0
> data model,
> any work that has an XML Schema?   This is undefined.  I think we should
> leave it as such, or we should ask another group.  Perhaps the XML CG, the
> XML Core WG, or the TAG may have a definition for what "XML", "XML Based",
> "XML Technologies" means.
> Other issues:
> -------------
> 5. Is this redundant with D-AG0009: alignment with Web architecture?
> Certainly the web architecture has tendencies that a goal is for
> all formats
> to be XML based.
> 6. Should we separate the outputs of the Working Group (the reference
> architecture document) from the implementations of web services?  Sample
> wording might be "uses XML for Web Services vocabularies".
> To forestall a rathole, it is inappropriate to talk about under what cases
> this goal cannot be met.  The goal should not say anything like "uses XML
> element/attribute syntax except where humans are authoring the documents"
> (ala Xquery) or "uses XML except for performance reasons" (the binary
> attachments/compression argument).
> Critical success factors
> ------------------------
> Each new architectural area is representable in a syntactic
> schema language
> like XML Schema.  I stress the "syntactic" adjective to schema language
> because the TAG has occasionally ratholed into HTML and RDF
> documents being
> "schema" languages.
> Cheers,
> Dave
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 09:08:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:54 UTC