[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
> Well, yeah. OK. But the damn term is a meme out there in memespace
> and the W3C, Microsoft, and IBM couldn't exterminate it at this
> point even if they wanted to or had any motivation to work together
> and try. After all, the whole point of the "Web Services"
> architecture WG being chartered was to figure out what people really
> meant by "web services" in an architectural sense and to try to find
> some order amidst the chaos.
Michael, there was a concrete suggestion made twice. In particular, if
the Web Service definition is going to include a reliance on XML, then
why not go along with Microsoft* and call them "XML Web Services?" We
can go on and on about how the industry works and what power the W3C has
but I know for sure that it has power over how it uses language.
* http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx
> To beat the "hijack" metaphor into the ground (endangering good taste
> in the process!), a group of marketroids hijacked the plane, couldn't
> agree where to fly it, so they appointed a committee of the passengers
> to decide ... retaining veto power over the decision. "Let's go back
> to the original airport and start over" doesn't seem to be an option
> that they will allow at this point .
We're talking about the term used in formal specifications to refer to a
particular construct. Who said anything about going back to the airport
to start again?
> ... It can Recommend whatever it
> wants, but if the Recommendations fall on deaf ears (as so many do),
> then what? And why would the vendors even contribute to the
> development of a Recommendation that essentially said "ignore all
> those billions of dollars of hype and vision-ware, let's start over
> from scratch with this stuff." It's not going to happen.
I think you're having a conversation I'm not having. I'll leave you to
it. ;)
> Sigh, if we want to get literal about it, XML is not really an
> "Extensible Markup Language",
Non sequiter. Naming something misleadingly is totally different than
overusing a pre-existing term. If XML had been named Standard
Generalized Markup Language then you would have a better analogy.
> Does the term "web service" cover all these?
I don't know, but the definition that was presented did not cover
HTML/HTTP services.
Paul Prescod
|
