RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

I've responded to just to the TAG list.  Let's try to have this discussion
in 1 list only.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 2:14 PM
> To: Anne Thomas Manes
> Cc: Paul Prescod; David Orchard;;
> Subject: Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)
> The only reason SOAP remains in the W3C for standardization is because
> all of the other forums either rejected the concept out of hand or
> refused to rubber-stamp a poor implementation of a bad idea.
> If this thing is going to be called Web Services, then I insist that
> it actually have something to do with the Web.  If not, I'd rather
> have the WS-I group responsible for abusing the marketplace with yet
> another CORBA/DCOM than have the W3C waste its effort pandering to
> the whims of marketing consultants.  I am not here to accommodate the
> requirements of mass hysteria.

The reason that SOAP remains and grows at the W3C is because it and related
specifications are heavy and responsible users of web machinery, and the
membership of the W3C has given strong endorsement of Web Services
development occuring at the W3C.  I had hoped to stay on the technical
merits of things, but you've openned the Pandora's box of Process.  As
you're prepared to go there, I am compelled to follow.

For the W3C to NOT do Web Services, it would mean that many members of the
W3C - as at least represented at the web services workshop and the 64 paper
submissions - would be ignored.  And that W3C Process would be ignored.  We
have already had this debate, and the W3C Team and Membership have created
the Web Services Activity, Descriptions, and Architecture Groups.  And the
W3C will create more Web Services Working Groups.  The W3C has a
well-defined process, and it was followed.

I don't consider myself or my company to be marketing consultant or being
part of mass hysteria.  The fact that the customers that are doing web
services and using web services products don't feel a strong need to use
HTTP (while using URIs, XML and much of HTTP) in a manner that you like,
shows where any hysteria on this issue lies.

I find it interesting that you feel comfortable being part of the TAG at the
W3C, which was voted on by the W3C Members, but you are uncomfortable with
Web Services as-is at the W3C, also voted on by W3C Members.  And if the Web
Services folks don't do what you think is right, they should just all go
somewhere else regardless of the process that got us where we are.  I'd
observe that in the TAG elections, 3 of the 5 elected members are members of
the SOAP WG.  I interpret this as yet another plank in the mandate that web
services at the W3C is important to the membership.

I'm prepared to continue discussion and gain understanding of yours and
others views - and I've repeatedly demonstrated that - but let's not ignore
what the member companies have expressed.  They can change their mind I
guess, but I frankly don't see that going over well on ac-forum.  Again, I'd
like avoid the process question and focus on the technical merits as befits
TAG discussions.


Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 19:18:58 UTC