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.

- gp

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