Lists Home |
Date Index |
> IMHO, standardization of this stuff makes sense, even though *at
> present* the different implementation components that need to exchange
> routing information tend to be proprietary or custom-written.
agreed - we've had to implement our own addressing headers to route
asynchronous messages in the absence of an interoperable standard
with clear IP.
> After all, you have a bunch of fierce competitors coming to the W3C and
> saying that they would like to see a Recommendation for this so that
> they can interoperate better. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of
> the doubt.
me too, and their coming to the W3C has been backed by a number of end-user
organisations petitioning them directly and indirectly inside fora such
as the WS-I.
> The absolutely last thing the W3C should do, assuming they want to ever
> get a web services submission again, is say "thanks, but no thanks, we
> don't think that needs to be standardized."
i wonder if the worry isn't the other way around. if the submission of
WS-Addressing is seen by vendors as a success (as opposed to SOAP 1.2 and
WSDL 2.0 which have taken a long time to standardise) then the W3C may be
swamped by 100 other competing WS-* specs all waiting to be ratified.
It's a fine line the W3C has to now tread - do they give these half-made
specs like WS-Addressing (or even WS-MD) a "rubber stamp" and risk
devaluing the W3C brand, or risk timely adoption by applying full
participation and lengthy process to a Recommendation?
Paul Sumner Downey