[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
1. That is what the WSIO was formed to work out.
2. An open standard can build on a de facto one if
the owner of the de facto standard will sign
participation agreements that indemnify all
other signers from litigation.
Businesses have been doing this sort of thing
for years. Standards making is a business.
The harsh problem is that standards favor the
success of large companies that can compete
on price point. That is what commoditization
means in the market place. That resistance
to fast change that Rick mentions is a resistance
to open commodities where the costs of development
have been borne by only a few parties. They
want time to make their money back before
they introduce change that let's them make
money again. Flavor of the month.
len
-
From: Paul Sumner Downey [mailto:Paul.Downey@whatfettle.com]
i'd put issues in composing WS-* specs down to:
1) they've not been designed to be plug-replaceable
but fit into slightly disconnected visions. e.g.
WS-Policy doesn't map directly to WSDL 2.0 Features
and Properties, you can't just swap Notification with
Eventing. OK there may possibly be mappings but there
are lots of edge conditions.
2) IPR problems: an open standard is unlikely
to reference and build on a defacto one. So we end
up with having to rely upon generalised extensibility
models. yeah, of course you can just stick tags from
different namespaces into an XML document. XML is great!
|
