You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to soap-dev@xml.apache.org by ru...@us.ibm.com on 2000/09/06 16:21:34 UTC
RE: YACORBA (was: IRC log)
Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
> SOAP (its core spec) will remain as simple as it is today, only
> we will hopefully get the extensions (that everybody is going
> to use anyway) standardized as extensions.
My only concern is that I don't want to see Apache become the breeding
grounds for "embracing and extending" popular standards. In the case of
SOAP, the right place to pursue standardization is the W3C.
- Sam Ruby
RE: YACORBA (was: IRC log)
Posted by Jacek Kopecky <ja...@idoox.com>.
I meant the extensions that are in use even today (logging, object
references, digsigs etc.). I didn't mean the extensions that we build
into ApacheSOAP. We certainly want to follow W3C.
What I was envisioning is:
1) W3C recommends some kind of XML messaging protocol (soap?)
2) W3C or other bodies (omg?) recommend vocabularies for specific
extensions.
3) the protocol (soap?) remains as simple as in the beginning, only we
got the extensions standardized. (my paragraph below).
Sorry for not making myself clear (especially if I haven't succeeded
this time either). 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox s.r.o.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 rubys@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >
> > SOAP (its core spec) will remain as simple as it is today, only
> > we will hopefully get the extensions (that everybody is going
> > to use anyway) standardized as extensions.
>
> My only concern is that I don't want to see Apache become the breeding
> grounds for "embracing and extending" popular standards. In the case of
> SOAP, the right place to pursue standardization is the W3C.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
RE: YACORBA (was: IRC log)
Posted by Jacek Kopecky <ja...@idoox.com>.
I meant the extensions that are in use even today (logging, object
references, digsigs etc.). I didn't mean the extensions that we build
into ApacheSOAP. We certainly want to follow W3C.
What I was envisioning is:
1) W3C recommends some kind of XML messaging protocol (soap?)
2) W3C or other bodies (omg?) recommend vocabularies for specific
extensions.
3) the protocol (soap?) remains as simple as in the beginning, only we
got the extensions standardized. (my paragraph below).
Sorry for not making myself clear (especially if I haven't succeeded
this time either). 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox s.r.o.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 rubys@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >
> > SOAP (its core spec) will remain as simple as it is today, only
> > we will hopefully get the extensions (that everybody is going
> > to use anyway) standardized as extensions.
>
> My only concern is that I don't want to see Apache become the breeding
> grounds for "embracing and extending" popular standards. In the case of
> SOAP, the right place to pursue standardization is the W3C.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>