I don't know much about why WS-I punted on this other than there was a sense that subsets of W3C specs should come from W3C ... and W3C doesn't think that a single subset will cover enough ground to be useful. See
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-schema-workshop/chairs-report.html#Profiles
I am pretty sure that anything that *really* makes life easier for all involved would get traction. The problem is that most profiles involve making life easier for one group and making life harder for another. That's not the road to success in a consensus-driven process, to say the least.
BTW, note http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/38435/status#participation before getting too hopeful about this effort. AFAIK, this would address only "XML Schema Patterns for Common Data Structures",
i.e. the question of how to map Collection, etc. data structures across platforms, but at least the view from Redmond (and, ahem, apparently other vendor HQs) is that this isn't one of the more important things standing in the way of WS interop.
On 4/19/06, Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that the most critical interop issues revolve around the impedance mismatch between the XML Schema type system and language type systems. (This is why I always recommend starting with XML types rather than language types -- and note that Sanjiva and Eric also endorse this practice.) Unfortunately, WS-I punted on creating an XML Schema profile, which would have made life much easier for everyone involved. The good news is that in December the W3C formed a working group to define "XML Schema Patterns for Databinding". See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
