[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I Learne d to L
> -----Original Message----- > From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 3:04 PM > To: Champion, Mike > Cc: xml-dev > Subject: Re: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE: XML.COM: How I > Learned t o Love daBomb) > > The continuing march of acronyms in the SOAP world suggests that we > aren't nearly finished yet, and interoperability looks likely to remain > a substantial issue for a long time going forward. For what it's worth, I was talking about SOAP 1.x itself. I personally agree that it could be considerably simpler and still hit the 80:20 point ... but the same can be said for XML itself, XSLT, etc. SOAP -- like the predecessors of most successful W3C specs ... and unlike the W3C specs that are causing most of the confusion -- does have a real track record. The folks on the soapbuilders list have been working on SOAP 1.1 interoperability issues, and SOAP 1.2 is being defined by a largely public process that incorporates the SOAP 1.1 experience and should help ensure that it really does reflect best practices in the field, not just best guesses in the committee room. I wouldn't claim anything like this for the other acronyms in the SOAP world; UDDI, WSDL, and the rest are much less mature, and much more subject to the critique that Edd Dumbill makes in the XML.com article under discussion.
|
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
|