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

RE: D-AG0010: Use XML

From: David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:21:56 -0800
To: "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <anne@manes.net>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <035601c1cf8e$ab3fb7f0$420ba8c0@beasys.com>
Anne,

Why do you add the "where appropriate" in the Uses XML goal but not other
goals?  Doesn't "where appropriate" apply to all of our goals?  Can you live
with the "where appropriate" not being in the goal?  IMHO, part of our job
is to figure out the "where appropriate" applies to each of the goals.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Anne Thomas Manes
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:08 AM
> To: David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: D-AG0010: Use XML
>
>
> 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, 19 March 2002 16:41:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:56 GMT