RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessagin g
"Champion, Mike" <[email protected]> Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:48:18 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ECCE.EC22D8C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:25 PM To: Ugo Corda; David Orchard; [email protected] Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging Why the heck are we spending all this time discussing what an OASIS TC should be doing? If we really wanted to keep WS-RM in the W3C we could have aggressively gone after chartering a WG. I can think of a couple of reasons. First, as Dave Orchard pointed out, OASIS really is more suited for relatively small and quick specs. As we know, it takes about six months just to get a W3C WG off the ground. Second, there is a lot of overlap between the people and companies involved with OASIS and W3C (not to mention WS-I). If this list and WG add value as a forum to discuss these issues, with the WSA document serving as a record of their *theoretical* resolution or the rationale for the contending *technical* issues at stake, that's fine with me. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ECCE.EC22D8C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 17, 2003 4:25 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Ugo Corda; David Orchard; [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2> Why the heck are we spending all this time discussing what an OASIS TC should be doing? If we really wanted to keep WS-RM in the W3C we could have aggressively gone after chartering a WG. <SPAN class=271594021-17032003> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=271594021-17032003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=271594021-17032003>I can think of a couple of reasons. First, as Dave Orchard pointed out, OASIS really is more suited for relatively small and quick specs. As we know, it takes about six months just to get a W3C WG off the ground. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=271594021-17032003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=271594021-17032003>Second, there is a lot of overlap between the people and companies involved with OASIS and W3C (not to mention WS-I). If this list and WG add value as a forum to discuss these issues, with the WSA document serving as a record of their *theoretical* resolution or the rationale for the contending *technical* issues at stake, that's fine with me.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ECCE.EC22D8C0--