Jim Webber has a piece where he posits that W3C's beaurocracy is actively working against Web services.
Quoting from his post:
I was amazed at the bureaucracy it takes just to handle a one-way transfer of a SOAP message. It involves at least 3 committees [...] and requires the instantiation of a new WSDL MEP!
Just as with SSDL, we the people are free to extend SOAP and WSDL for one-way transfer. In a short document I could show by example how something like that would work, and it may be implemented interoperably and all would be good. But more likely than not there would be misinterpretations and general opposition to implementing Jacek's thing.
On the conceptual level, the short document would be equal to creating a new SOAP MEP, extending the SOAP HTTP binding (or creating a new one) to support that MEP, and extending/creating a WSDL binding that would use that SOAP-level stuff. The short document would probably skip a lot of formalities which could hinder reuse or clarity of the spec.
Now W3C cannot produce such a short document because their main goals include reuse and total unambiguity of the specs. And it has multiple committees focused on multiple (mostly) orthogonal specifications, because one big W3C Web Specifications Working Group would clearly not work without spinning out a number of focused task forces, probably very similar to the WGs and TFs we have now.
W3C works the same way for all its specifications, not just for Web services.
Posted at 1517 on Thu, Mar 10, 2005 in category Work | TrackBack | Comments feedHey Jacek,
SSDL already captures this behaviour in all of its plugin frameworks in one form or another. The great thing about all the frameworks in SSDL apart from the "WSDL emulation" (MEP) one, is that such matters are implicit - you don't worry about defining individal MEPS (which is restrictive) you are concerned with the details of protocols (which is far more natural and expressive).
Jim
Posted by: Jim Webber at March 10, 2005 10:50 PM