• To: xml-dev DEV' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: WS-RM vs WS-R -- was Re: [Fwd: Re: You call that a standard?]
• From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:48:54 -0400
• In-reply-to: <40966826.7622E8A3@b...>
• References: <40965844.C8BF35A7@b...> <029E5D9C-9D17-11D8-9C3B-000A95CCC59E@x...> <40966826.7622E8A3@b...>

> Follow this thread, from July 2003 - it's the WSRM TC's response to the
> announcement of the WS-ReliableMessaging Spec Workshop:
>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200307/msg00008.html
>
>
Oh, we need to achieve loose coupling by defining all the WS-* specs in 
one cohesive unit.
That is clear to me now, thanks to the techniques of Doublethink and an 
application of the principles of Ingsoc to web services.  :-)

<politics-alert>
p.s.  My favorite illustration of how  the Three Principles of Ingsoc 
apply to modern problems is
http://www.studentsfororwell.org/shirt/1984.jpg
</politics-alert>

• References:
  • [Fwd: Re: You call that a standard?]
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
  • WS-RM vs WS-R -- was Re: [Fwd: Re: You call that a standard?]
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: WS-RM vs WS-R -- was Re: [Fwd: Re: You call that a standard?]
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: WS-RM vs WS-R -- was Re: [Fwd: Re: You call that a standard?]
• Next by Date: ANN: submissions for XML 2004 due this Friday!
• Previous by thread: Re: WS-RM vs WS-R -- was Re: [Fwd: Re: You call that a standard?]
• Next by thread: ANN: submissions for XML 2004 due this Friday!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread