- From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:30:17 -0500
- To: "Rob Henley" <rob.henley@freeuk.com>, <www-ws@w3.org>
The WS-Desc team determined that the spec it was developing was sufficiently different from WSDL 1.1 that it was more appropriate to name it WSDL 2.0 rather than WSDL 1.2. So the team simply changed the name from WSDL 1.2 to WSDL 2.0. You should think of the last WSDL 1.2 working draft as an early version of the current WSDL 2.0 working draft. SOAP 1.2 is complete, and developers can use WSDL 1.1 to describe SOAP 1.2 services. But the fact of the matter is, very few products fully support SOAP 1.2, and anyone developing Web services using SOAP 1.2 will probably encounter interoperability issues for the immediate future. I agree with your third assumption. Anne At 03:55 AM 2/9/2004, Rob Henley wrote: >Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I haven't seen this clarified anywhere. Can >anyone say if these assumptions are correct? > >1. WSDL 1.2 will not be developed further and will never progress from >working draft? >2. WSDL 2.0 as it currently stands is identical to WSDL 1.2, but is >intended to be developed by W3C to Recommendation status? >3. most businesses will probably wait for a finalised WSDL 2.0 before >migrating from SOAP 1.1 + WSDL 1.1 + basic Profile to SOAP 1.2 + WSDL 2.0? > >Many thanks >Rob Henley > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anne Thomas Manes VP & Research Director Burton Group
Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 10:35:06 UTC