- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:04:21 -0400
- To: Anne Thomas Manes <atm@systinet.com>
- Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, "Www-Talk@W3. Org" <www-talk@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 06:31:45PM -0400, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > So here's the question: do the application semantics of HTTP define the Web > architecture? Does the abuse of HTTP POST constitute a violation of the Web > architecture? Yes. > I don't particularly care where SOAP and WSDL get standardized. I'm not > driven to do "the right thing for the Web". I'm trying to do the right thing > for my customers. I'm working to make SOAP and WSDL better, because my > customers are building business applications based on SOAP and WSDL. Don't you think some of your customers are under the impression that they're getting technology that will work as well as the Web has worked? All those goodies you get from the Web; scalability, interoperability, safety, etc.. I would expect that at least some of them would. I've been saying all along that there *is* a way to do what Web services are trying to do, but in a manner consistent with Web architecture. I would bet that your customers would be really interested in this. > If W3C doesn't want to be a part of this effort, then let's just be up front > about out. Let's cancel the entire Web Services Activity, and we (the > members) will just take our work elsewhere. (Be prepared to lose a few of > us.) Personally, I'd rather have the standardization effort happen at a > venue that isn't trying to undermine the effort. I'd be all for this. I would also expect that the fees we'd lose with members leaving would be less than the cost for running the Web Services Activity. So I consider that a good thing. Plus, they'll be back, if they don't go out of business first. 8-) MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 23:57:35 UTC