W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2004

RE: WSD charter goal: Simplicity

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:48:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB05F942F5@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

David,

I would argue that even if a simple syntax is within our charter (and I am
not saying it isn't currently) that the correct way to accomplish this is to
simplify the existing WSDL language syntax.

I am not in favor of inventing a 'new' syntax.  I *am* supportive of any
simplification proposal that reduces the number of pointy-brackets that
users may have to read or type.

That being said, we are trying to finish the spec, and I think you may have
to realize that our direction on syntax (simple or complex) is pretty well
established. 

I consider thing like renaming portType to interface major victories in
simplification for this group, who have never met a feature (or property?)
that they didn't like. :-}

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:54 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: WSD charter goal: Simplicity


Here's roughly what we are thinking of sending in for the AC review on the
topic of simple syntax, your comments appreciated.  If this is unnecessary,
please let me know as well.

The Charter for the WSD Working Group says that simplicity is a goal for
WSDL [1].  We have observed [2] that a bare minimum operational WSD requires
25 WSD constructs, excluding the schema for the message.  In our message, we
made 3 orthogonal proposals.  We thought that any of them either single or
in combination might be useful to simplify the authoring of WSD.  We do not
as a rule make suggestions of the form "please change X" without also
proposing at least one solution, aka "be part of the solution not part of
the problem", hence our proposals.  We are extremely open to discussing our
proposals (though we are quite fond of the inline syntax proposal and
default value proposals) or other solutions, but in the context that we are
concerned that WSD 2.0 may not meet an 80/20 case for a WSD author.  There
has been some discussion in the WG of comparing different solutions for a
simpler or 80/20 syntax, ie [3].  However, others, ie [4], have argued that
a simple syntax is out of scope for the WG as the charter is written.

As such, we would like the charter to be clearer that developing a simple
syntax is in scope for the WG.  We are expressly concerned that "waiting"
for a simple syntax may make it impossible to develop such a syntax.
Imagine if XPath did not have the "/" operator....

As the charter has left this point seemingly underspecified, we request that
the language be tightened up.  We suggest something along the lines of "The
WG is encouraged to provide a simple syntax", or "The WG shall use it's
discretion to determine the feasibility of specifying syntax that may
simplify or subset the WSD functionality."  This way the WG can decide,
based upon it's schedule, availability of resources, etc. whether or not to
undertake this work.

I also suggest that if other AC members believe that the WSD WG MUST or
SHOULD provide a simpler syntax, then they may want to indicate that earlier
than a Last Call review.

Cheers,
Dave

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/ws-desc-charter.html#simplicity
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0071.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0105.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0092.html
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:12:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT