Re: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2")

 Paul,
 seeing the email in which you are raising your issue, I was
struck by the similarity to my recent email, the one you
reference. I apologize for inadvertently copying you. 8-)
 Anyway, my email was meant as trying to get hold of the 
direction of the whole SOAP spec. As I wrote, I believe it's 
practically impossible to consolidate (a) and (c) (specia-lcased 
by (b)), so I'd rather see a clear choice over an attempt to 
satisfy everybody by splitting the spec into possibly three (or 
more) pieces each with its goals.
 My main problem can be worded as "restful use of HTTP vs. the
Abstract Model".
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Paul Prescod wrote:

 > 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 20:43:16 UTC