Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: WS-Emperor naked?
 Rex Brooks wrote: > 1. It is difficult to sound reasonable while saying > on the one hand, "Yeah I mostly agree with you," I recognize that and appreciate your quandary. Also, I know that either publicly or privately, many of the members of the OASIS CAP TC have also said that they recognize that many of my criticisms are valid. However, it is clear that the TC members as a whole valued having a standard -- even one that is flawed and contains "non-truths" -- as more important than accepting the delay of cleaning up the mess and voting on a less flawed document. In the context of this specific discussion, I think it is clear that it was massively easier for such thinking to prevail in a loose and non-rigorous environment like OASIS then it would have been in other standards forums (like ISO or IETF) which value more highly the quality, correctness and utility of their specifications. (Yes, I know that even others have made mistakes...) > True, yes, but mostly spilt milk and yesterday's papers. Bob > didn't get sufficiently involved to affect the course of how > this standard came into being until after the public review Whether or not I became involved in a timely fashion is irrelevant. The point is that I identified numerous severe problems with the specification prior to its acceptance as a standard by OASIS. In virtually any other standards organization, at least some of the problems I found would have been considered "show-stoppers." What mystifies me is how the review process could have been so flawed that it was possible for an XML "amateur" like myself to find so many flaws in this spec. (I am not an XML expert! Many of the members of *this* list will readily and happily attest to that!) Clearly, the public review was inadequate. This is simply another indictment of both the OASIS process and the CAP process. Little details like the fact that the CAP XML Schema uses "prohibited" elements in at least 10 places should never have lived through any proper review process. Similarly, I find it impossible to accept that a well run public review process would not have had at least one person wonder: "If CAP claims to provide encryption and signature facilities, where are they?" I have received much comment on my criticism of CAP. Some have suggested that I have some commercial agenda to push. I do not. Some have suggested that I am simply a "gadfly" who loves to attack these things. I am not. Others have suggested that it is "unkind" to criticize the work of others so publicly. Well, life in the standards world ain't pretty... I have even received veiled threats from a prominent member of the TC who claims that the OASIS lawyer has suggested that my criticisms are somehow inappropriate... Nonetheless, as flawed as CAP is, I recognize that the goal of the CAP effort is a good one and will do everything in my power to clearly identify not only problems but also productive ways to move ahead. But, don't expect me to be quiet or even polite in this process. CAP is a "life and death" protocol upon which *my* life, the life of my daughter and others who I love, may one day depend. I will not take it lightly. Nor be silent so as to be "sporting" or appear to be a "good guy." Certainly, I will not treat it as lightly, as irresponsibly, and as casually as OASIS appears to be prepared to have it treated. bob wyman 
|
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
|
|||||||||
