[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Typing and paranoia

• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>, XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Typing and paranoia
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:22:01 -0800
• In-reply-to: <3DEF8BFF.4030100@t...>
• References: <3DEF8BFF.4030100@t...> <oprgx03bryezizxn@localhost> <3DF0E21E.2000403@p...> <oprgzwgkrsezizxn@localhost>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016

Mike Champion wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:45:02 -0800, Paul Prescod  wrote:
>
> > Mike Champion wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> "Note that, because SOAP is Infoset based, in a situation where two 
> nodes
> >> 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.

Sorry. But it was quoted approvingly.

>  I don't think the 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 Web, no? 

According to this logic, the W3C is responsible for the upcoming war in 
Iraq because I can invent URIs for both America and Iraq. I'm not 
kidding. That's what you're saying. The W3C is responsible for any 
interactions between any entities addressed by URIs!

I think that the W3C is responsible for maintaining the standards for a 
particular Internet-based information system. Things that do not go 
across the Internet are not their concern.

> 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. 

If the W3C clearly valued these things then it would NOT allow the SOAP 
specification to leave a hole the size of the Indian ocean for 
proprietary vendors to invent random binary formats and claim that they 
are fully SOAP compliant.

On the other hand, if the W3C invented a _particular_ binary format and 
said that the SOAP specification can _also_ be used with that format 
then interoperability would be possible and lock-in prevented. But the 
spec as it is is wide open. You didn't respond to my Quake UDP packet 
example. If I write up a mapping from these packets to SOAP is Quake 
SOAP compliant? If so, then in what sense does a declaration of SOAP 
compliance have any interoperability benefits?

  Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Typing and paranoia
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Typing and paranoia
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Next by Date: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Previous by thread: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Next by thread: Re: Typing and paranoia
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread