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

Re: Long owed Description stack words

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:45:08 +0100
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021028104508.GI20932@w3.org>

* Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr> [2002-10-28 11:16+0100]
> Heather, Chris,
> 
> I have some comments on your recent addition to the Architecture 
> document.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> ================
> 
> "(WSDL) is the de facto standard for XML based service description"
> 
>   I find it somewhat troublesome that a W3C WG (WSA)
>   caracterizes what is now the work of another
>   W3C WG (WSD) as "de facto standard". I know this is
>   meant for WSDL 1.1, but I think we should also cater
>   for WSDL 1.2.
> 
> "WSDL has been submitted to the W3C for standardization"
> 
>   It's not just been submitted, it is being actively
>   worked on!
> 
>   Suggestion: add: "and is being worked on by the
>   W3C Web Service Description WG."
> 
> "however, the only currently described bindings are for SOAP 1.1, 
> HTTP POST, and MIME."
> 
>   Suggestion: change to: "WSDL 1.1 describes the following
>   bindings: SOAP 1.1, HTTP POST and MIME. WSDL 1.2 will also
>   describe a SOAP 1.2 binding."

I agree with Jean-Jacques. I will reiterate what I said about the
mention of SOAP 1.1's submission: I don't think that we need to be
historians of Web services here. We are describing the architecture.

Moreover, I would be careful about using the word "standard": for
example, W3C doesn't develop Recommendations. For this particular
instance I would just drop "is the de facto standard for XML based
service description" (the sentence looks weird to me grammatically,
anyway). I would also drop "WSDL has been submitted to the W3C for
standardization."

As a general rule, I would just try and avoid the word "standard".

BTW, Chris, that reminds me that the similar changes that I suggested
about SOAP 1.1[1] were not integrated.

On the same topic, in the introduction, I would change:

|   The popular Web services standards; SOAP and WSDL, were originally
|   developed outside the W3C but are now being refined and standardized
|   within the W3C Web Services Activity. These de-facto standards have
|   helped by creating and extensible messaging framework (SOAP) , and an
|   interface definition language (WSDL) and data encoding conventions
|   that facilitate mapping to back end systems.

into:

  The popular Web services technologies SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 were
  originally developed outside the W3C but are now being used as the
  basis for creating an extensible messaging framework (SOAP 1.2) and
  an interface definition language (WSDL 1.2) as well as data encoding
  conventions that facilitate mapping to back end systems, within the
  W3C Web Services Activity.

Regards,

Hugo

  1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-wsa-comments/2002Oct/0002.html
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 05:45:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT