Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: Joshua Allen [mailto:email@example.com]
> pushed to the back of the room while these competitors
> work out a level of interoperability they are comfortable
>>This work has got to be done, but at this point it is more an issue of
>>getting everyone in the room and testing things until they work
>>together, rather than a standards negotiation exercise.
That's a productive perspective. It does assume the specs that
are there (the baseline, I guess) are the ones we will work
with for now. That doesn't accommodate Paul's position on
REST. A URI-centric vs. API centric design doesn't seem
to be an issue for WSIO (just guessing). What happens
if the W3C reconsiders and moves towards Paul's position?
That is the conflict.
>> If the standards bodies really want interop, they better
>> get ready to move fast in the rapids. Anyone who shoots
>> the rapids can tell you it requires intense focus.
>I guess I don't see the overlap to the degree that you do.
See last paragraph. The overlap will happen if a party
decides on a different architecture. We have a lot
of discussion on REST, yet I have these documents in
front of me for baseline and global web services. I
think we should look at these and try to understand
these too. My guess is that tools for this are about
ready to ship, so they become immediately interesting.
> have. What we need from XML, the WSIO is standardizing.
>That's where I definitely disagree -- Web Services is just *one*
>application of XML, and was not the first, neither will it be the last.
I meant that only in the context of web services. Point taken, though.