- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
- cc: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>, Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Gilbert Pilz wrote: > I've run across this same complaint many times when dealing with > customers, analysts, and other non-standards people. The common suspicion > seems to be that we split the WS-* material up into lots of > semi-duplicate specs with weird inter-relationships so we'd be the only > ones who could ever understand it and thus assure ourselves of a job. There is no need to split specs to have that effect :) > Doug Davis wrote: > > Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote on 05/06/2009 10:26:49 AM: > > > On Wed, 6 May 2009, Katy Warr wrote: > > > > > Yves > > > > > > I guess that by 'more general' you mean that a separate > fragment spec > > > would be re-usable outside the context of WS-Transfer? > In theory, I > > > could imagine this might be a possibility but, in > practice, I can't think > > > of a real example. I'm concerned that we'd create an > extra specification > > > > Ok, so following the same logic, SOAP and WSDL should be in > the same spec > > and namespace, almost nobody using WSDL is not using SOAP, > so it would be > > a good match. > > I think I am not sold to that idea ;) > > Be careful - to some all of the splitting we've done has > really WS*/SOAP. > Personally I dislike that SOAP has so many 'parts'. I didn't > see the point > of WSA (which is so small) being split into 3. I just got > thru listening > to an analyst complain about how we messed up WS* because its > so complicated > and this proliferation of specs did not help. > -Doug > > > -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiƩu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 20:01:38 UTC