- 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 tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 20:01:38 UTC