W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2")

From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:05:08 -0800
Message-ID: <3CA11AC4.B114B769@prescod.net>
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
CC: Dear XMLP Comments <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, jacek@systinet.com, Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> You raised an issue about splitting the SOAP 1.2 specification
> further[1].
> 
> The WG has already split the original SOAP 1.1 specification into
> two parts (Part 1 and Part 2). The WG considers that this is
> sufficient for now, and does not want to split the specification
> any further[2] (although the WG reserves the right to split the
> specification further in the future if it so desires).
> 
> As such, the WG considers the issue closed. Please let us know if
> this is an acceptable resolution.

No, it is not an acceptable resolution but I did not expect an
acceptable resolution. I am just trying to be a good citizen in trying
to influence the specifications rather than merely criticize them.

You've referred me to an internal URI which I unfortunately cannot
access. Nevertheless, let me reiterate that there is widespread
confusion about what SOAP is. I think that this is in large part because
under the one name there are very different technologies. The last
specification I can remember that bundled so many diverse, seemingly
independent pieces under one name was HyTime. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I see this as being, in part, the cause of the confusion here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0267.html

If SOAP were split into differently named then we could judge the role
of each part separately and members could vote them up or down
separately. If I may refer to Jacek's question, one could easily make
the argument that parts of SOAP are: a), parts are b) and parts are c).

Because they are lumped into a single logical unit, it is extremely
difficult to communicate this to people who do not spend their days and
nights reading the specification. I think it is really tragic that most
people in the Real World have a fundamentally different understanding of
what SOAP is than the people working on the specification. This
situation could be improved if the parts were given different names and
specifications (i.e. xml messaging protocol, xml procedure call
protocol, xml object encoding, etc).

Note also that it was because of the Hytime and SGML experiences that
the XML working group worked so hard to remove all optional feature from
its specifications. Yet almost all of SOAP seems optional. The adjuncts
are a menu of features that you can choose to implement or not.

Nevertheless, you've made your decision and I've said my piece. We can
both close the issue in good conscience.

 Paul Precod
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 20:09:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT