- From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:07:57 -0500
- To: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Might I suggest: "uses XML where appropriate." > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of David Orchard > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 5:03 PM > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: D-AG0010: Use XML > > > This message kicks off discussion on goal 10, use of XML (affectionately > known as XML world domination ;-). Please comment on goal > wording, success > factors. > > The goal as stated > "D-AG0010 > uses W3C XML technologies in the development of the web services > architecture to the extent that this is compatible with the overall goals > listed here" > > Discussion: > ----------- > I think this should be > > "uses XML.". I can live with "is XML based" > > 1. The word "technologies" does not add value to the simple goal of uses > XML. I don't see "uses XML technologies" being better than "uses XML". > 2. The words "in the development of the web services architecture" is > redundant. We don't need to put this in every goal. > 3. The words "to the extent that this is compatible with the overall goals > listed here" is redundant. Each and every goal is met wrt to other goals. > We could use these words with every other goal. > > 4. What are "XML technologies" or what is "XML"? Is this XML > element/attribute, XML Infoset, XML 1.0 + namespaces, XPath 1.0 > data model, > any work that has an XML Schema? This is undefined. I think we should > leave it as such, or we should ask another group. Perhaps the XML CG, the > XML Core WG, or the TAG may have a definition for what "XML", "XML Based", > "XML Technologies" means. > > Other issues: > ------------- > 5. Is this redundant with D-AG0009: alignment with Web architecture? > Certainly the web architecture has tendencies that a goal is for > all formats > to be XML based. > 6. Should we separate the outputs of the Working Group (the reference > architecture document) from the implementations of web services? Sample > wording might be "uses XML for Web Services vocabularies". > > To forestall a rathole, it is inappropriate to talk about under what cases > this goal cannot be met. The goal should not say anything like "uses XML > element/attribute syntax except where humans are authoring the documents" > (ala Xquery) or "uses XML except for performance reasons" (the binary > attachments/compression argument). > > Critical success factors > ------------------------ > Each new architectural area is representable in a syntactic > schema language > like XML Schema. I stress the "syntactic" adjective to schema language > because the TAG has occasionally ratholed into HTML and RDF > documents being > "schema" languages. > > Cheers, > Dave >
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 09:08:15 UTC