Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Redefining the meaning of common nouns
 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 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
