----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Sosnoski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 15:41 Subject: Re: Document style web services
> I think WS-I has serious credibility problems, especially since it came > out that Microsoft's participation was conditional on Sun being excluded > from a major role in the organization. To quote from a Bill Gates memo > in reference to WS-I which was made public during the antitrust trial > (as reported in http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t288-s2110205,00.html, > for one source): "I can live with this if we have the positioning > clearly in our favour. In particular, Sun not being one of the > movers/announcers/founding members." I'm sure that, as a participant in > WS-I, you're familiar with these issues, Anne. This credibility problem > is certainly going to influence how WS-I proposals are treated by the > industry. To be fair, WS-I isnt that bad a spec, despite its adoption of DIME as the binary attachment mechanism. Keith and the others did work reasonably well, and I've only submitted one request for clarification on it so far (whether clients must handle 302 redirects, or whether it was just a "may" or a "should"). Have I got a reply yet? Nope. At the same time, I cant help treating WS-I mandates with some less seriousness than W3C. W3C are laying down the soap1.1 spec, the foundations of everything. WS-I are reprinting truckloads of specs that are being published and mandated without going through the 'working code' rigorousness of IETF processs. > If Sun becomes a full coequal participant in the WS-I organization it'll > go a long way toward establishing WS-I as a bona fide forum for > supporting interoperability. Given Sun's ownership of Java and control > over Java standards it's hard to take an organization that excludes Sun > seriously on these issues. It'd be nice if Sun got involved with Axis too.
