RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I Learne d to Love daBomb)

["Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 3:04 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: xml-dev
> Subject: Re: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I
> Learned t o Love daBomb)
> 

 
> The continuing march of acronyms in the SOAP world suggests that we
> aren't nearly finished yet, and interoperability looks likely to remain
> a substantial issue for a long time going forward.
 
For what it's worth, I was talking about SOAP 1.x itself.  I personally
agree that it could be considerably simpler and still hit the 80:20 point
... but the same can be said for XML itself, XSLT, etc.  SOAP -- like the
predecessors of most successful W3C specs ... and unlike the W3C specs that
are causing most of the confusion -- does have a real track record. The
folks on the soapbuilders list have been working on SOAP 1.1
interoperability issues, and SOAP 1.2 is being defined by a largely public
process that incorporates the SOAP 1.1 experience and should help ensure
that it really does reflect best practices in  the field, not just best
guesses in the committee room.  

I wouldn't claim anything like this for the other acronyms in the SOAP
world; UDDI, WSDL, and the rest are much less mature, and much more subject
to the critique that Edd Dumbill makes in the XML.com article under
discussion.