W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2003

Re: Extensions and profiles

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:08:37 -0500
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <075401c39f10$d7aedc00$7b00a8c0@AURORA>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
To: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 12:57 PM
Subject: Extensions and profiles

> Hi all,
> it seems that there is an opinion among the WG members that standards
> shouldn't contain extensions because extensions cause profiling and that
> is bad.
> Here's how I see it:
>      1. A standard (a normative text) is good for interoperability
>         because there is an expectation that if somebody else is doing
>         similar stuff, they will use the standard instead of reinventing
>         it differently.
>      2. Standards may contain extensibility points and AFAICS everybody
>         agrees that is good practice because the standard can be used
>         even if it doesn't cover everything someone needs.
>      3. Standard specifications of extensions are good because again, if
>         somebody does the same thing that requires extending the base
>         standard, they will likely use the standard extensions. In other
>         words, a standard extension is a standard, see point one.
> There is a great space for profiling when a standard is open for
> interpretation on some points - the profile chooses the preferred
> interpretation (BP and SOAP/1.1, WSDL 1.1). There's also a space for
> profiling when a standard extension is flawed - the profile defines
> another extension that replaces the flawed one or the profile just says
> the extension should not be used (BP and SOAP/1.1 section 5 Encoding).
> To be concrete, that's why optional HTTP binding and optional RPC
> operation style are both good, even though not required. If we don't do
> a good job of specifying these extensions, somebody will have to create
> a profile. They will be able to do so without having to create WSDL 2.1.
> We shouldn't make things mandatory just so that somebody cannot fix them
> separately in a profile if we screw up.
> Best regards,
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 13:08:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:45 UTC