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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:49:03 -0500
To: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>, "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <anne@manes.net>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CJEIKEMEBAONGDDNLEKFEEPPDOAA.anne@manes.net>
I can live without "where appropriate".

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:22 PM
> To: 'Anne Thomas Manes'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: D-AG0010: Use XML
>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 20 March 2002 09:49:03 GMT

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