• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: WS-Emperor naked?
• From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:33:54 -0500
• In-reply-to: <6D041BA9-84E3-11D8-9C89-0003930EB8B0@m...>
• References: <E1FB3A8E-84E0-11D8-ABCB-000A95A51C9E@t...> <6D041BA9-84E3-11D8-9C89-0003930EB8B0@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040312 Debian/1.6-3

Jim Rankin wrote:

>     Would anyone here like to argue that the list found in
> 
>     http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/04/01/WS-Mumble
> 
>     is coherent, or sensible, or viable, or generally that the parrot is
>     not dead?
> 
> I wish that we could just look at the "Updated:" date on your post and 
> categorize this with some of the other things posted yesterday...

I wish I'd read those other things, but I did go and look at Tim's blog. 
Ouch.  It's bizarre seeing all of those WS-* specs out there, when we 
haven't even had a chance to gain much real experience using SOAP at the 
basic RPC level.  The WS-Parrot is not dead per se: it was never given a 
chance to hatch.


All the best,


David

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: WS-Emperor naked?
    • From: Rex Brooks <rexb@s...>

• References:
  • WS-Emperor naked?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: WS-Emperor naked?
    • From: Jim Rankin <jimbokun_lists@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: WS-Emperor naked?
• Next by Date: RE: XSD "simpleType" validation for strings
• Previous by thread: Re: WS-Emperor naked?
• Next by thread: Re: WS-Emperor naked?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread