W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Re: SOAP's prohibiting use of XML internal subset

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:59:15 -0800
Message-ID: <05e301c294e0$4b687fc0$f4457743@mnotlaptop>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> > > I think the Web Services community ought
> > >to be real nervous about flying in the face of an IETF BCP.
> >
> > Why? It's a Best Current Practice, and it is explicitly scoped to use
> > XML within *IETF* protocols. It's just that community's best current
> > thinking (words directly from RFC2026) on a particular topic, and may
> > (dare I say probably will) change.
> If you think that the design issues around IETF protocols are not
> similar to those in the SOAP arena, you're welcome to your opinion, but
> I think the evidence is against you.  Also, the current document
> represents the results of a months-long process with a large number of
> participants, I don't think you can airily say "oh, just ignore this
> because it will probably change."

Tim, I was only refuting your statement that the Web services community
should be quaking in its boots at the thought of contradicting a BCP. The
impression that this statement gives does not accurately reflect the
status of the document or its stated scope. In fact, the BCP may have
entirely reasonable arguments regarding this subject; however, the
decision shouldn't be based on the argument "it's a BCP."

Regarding the design issues of IETF protocols vs. SOAP; please produce the
evidence you speak of.

The IETF tends to prefer bespoke protocols; it has consistently resisted
the one-size-fits-all approach (even BEEP is seeing limited traction, last
time I looked, and that was invented there). SOAP, OTOH, is effectively a
protocol construction toolkit, with an entirely different audience. The
fact that different people are actually designing the final protocol -
Working Group experts in the former case, your local business analyst/it
hack in the latter - means that placing different constraints on them may
be entirely sensible.

In any case, SOAP1.2 is the result of a years-long process with a large
number of participants. Looking at the issues list [1] and the referenced
messages, it appears that these exact concerns came up, so please don't
airly say "that seems dumb" without considering their reasons, or refute
their arguments specifically if you have.


1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x4
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 19:11:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:55 UTC