Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:45:02 -0800, Paul Prescod <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mike Champion wrote:
>> "Note that, because SOAP is Infoset based, in a situation where two
>> share a memory (run on the same processor or tightly coupled MP),
> Why would the _world wide web_ consortium have anything to say one way or
> another about a situation where two nodes share a memory? Talk about
> scope creep!
I'm pretty sure that's not a quote from me, but nevermind. I don't think
W3C can have it both ways: if the "Web" is the set of things identifiable
by a URI,
and the endpoints of these messages are identified by a URI, they're on the
no? If the "Web" is the set of URLs that identify resources whose
representations can be manipulated by HTTP and FTP, then the W3C has no
business concerning itself with "web" services (as currently practiced)
I think the membership has implicitly chosen the former understanding, and
that leads us to uncharted territory. It's kinda hard to draw the
until the territory is charted.
But more pragmatically, if the W3C doesn't concern itself with this stuff, who
will? It WILL be somebody, and they WILL NOT share the W3C's
values about universality, vendor/language/platform-neutrality, and
royalty-free intellectual property.