- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:05:08 -0800
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- CC: Dear XMLP Comments <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, jacek@systinet.com, Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > > Paul, > > You raised an issue about splitting the SOAP 1.2 specification > further[1]. > > The WG has already split the original SOAP 1.1 specification into > two parts (Part 1 and Part 2). The WG considers that this is > sufficient for now, and does not want to split the specification > any further[2] (although the WG reserves the right to split the > specification further in the future if it so desires). > > As such, the WG considers the issue closed. Please let us know if > this is an acceptable resolution. No, it is not an acceptable resolution but I did not expect an acceptable resolution. I am just trying to be a good citizen in trying to influence the specifications rather than merely criticize them. You've referred me to an internal URI which I unfortunately cannot access. Nevertheless, let me reiterate that there is widespread confusion about what SOAP is. I think that this is in large part because under the one name there are very different technologies. The last specification I can remember that bundled so many diverse, seemingly independent pieces under one name was HyTime. Be afraid. Be very afraid. I see this as being, in part, the cause of the confusion here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0267.html If SOAP were split into differently named then we could judge the role of each part separately and members could vote them up or down separately. If I may refer to Jacek's question, one could easily make the argument that parts of SOAP are: a), parts are b) and parts are c). Because they are lumped into a single logical unit, it is extremely difficult to communicate this to people who do not spend their days and nights reading the specification. I think it is really tragic that most people in the Real World have a fundamentally different understanding of what SOAP is than the people working on the specification. This situation could be improved if the parts were given different names and specifications (i.e. xml messaging protocol, xml procedure call protocol, xml object encoding, etc). Note also that it was because of the Hytime and SGML experiences that the XML working group worked so hard to remove all optional feature from its specifications. Yet almost all of SOAP seems optional. The adjuncts are a menu of features that you can choose to implement or not. Nevertheless, you've made your decision and I've said my piece. We can both close the issue in good conscience. Paul Precod
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 20:09:25 UTC