Sam, on further thought, it's not working. I need to talk with you on the
phone to be able to play 20 questions.

So now might be a good time to have an open conference call using your
facilities at IBM.

Is that possible?

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@[...]..> 
To: <soapbuilders@[...].com> 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Dave says: Tell me what to write


>  <section serious="no" note="be careful to note smileys">
> 
>     Oh, sure, send a note saying that you will be up all night after I go
to
>     bed (I'm on the east coast)...  ;-)
> 
>     Ask people to tell you what to write, and then when they tell you what
>     to write, tell them you will think about it, but never get back to
them.
>     ;-)
> 
>     Don't say that you haven't finished thinking about it yet - you are the
>     one saying that it should be ready to freeze at 9 am.  ;-)
> 
>  </section>
> 
>  The attached e-mail contained a very specific request.  Dave, I'm still
>  curious as to what you think.
> 
>  I appear to not have been successful to date in finding the words that
>  convey my concern.  I'll continue trying, sometimes borrowing words from
>  others, sometimes trying different tactics.
> 
>  New approach:
> 
>     Question: What do you call a spec that permits some of the MUST NOTs
>       that another spec does not?
>     Answer: A superset.
> 
>     Question: What do you call a spec that does not require all of the
MUSTs
>       that another spec does?
>     Answer: A superset.
> 
>     Question: What do you call a spec that starts with another spec and
adds
>       additional MUSTs?
>     Answer: A subset
> 
>     Question: What do you call a spec that starts with another spec and
adds
>       additional MUST NOTs?
>     Answer: A subset
> 
>     Question: Given these answers, is the current BDG a superset or a
>       subset?
>     Answer: Both.  Neither.  A dialect.  A different protocol.  I'm so
>       confused!
> 
>  A quick start would say something like:
> 
>      "if you see something that looks like a header - look for a
>     mustunderstand attribute and if you find it - simply fail the request!
>     At some point in the future, you might want to add in support for
>     headers, but for now you don't so simply reject the request."
> 
>  Header support could be in a second chapter of the quick start.  As could
a
>  number of other aspects of SOAP.  Don't banish them forever from the "BDG
>  subset" of SOAP, simply don't require them in the first cautious steps
>  towards SOAP interop.
> 
>  Again, I would like to see this document describe an on-ramp not a
>  destination.
> 
>  Keep up the good work!
> 
>  - Sam Ruby
> 
>  ---------------------- Forwarded by Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM on 04/02/2001
>  09:26 AM ---------------------------
> 
>  Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM@[...].. on 04/01/2001 03:49:20 PM
> 
>  Please respond to soapbuilders@[...].com
> 
>  To:   soapbuilders@[...].com
>  cc:
>  Subject:  Re: [soapbuilders] RFC: Top of BDG
> 
> 
> 
>  Dave,
> 
>  My two cents: much improved.
> 
>  It is probably way too late for this suggestion, but I will give it
anyway.
>  Consider renaming the document to "A Quick Start to Soap 1.1".
> 
>  There are four occurrences of the word subset in this document.  The two
in
>  the first paragraph can evaporate.  The one in the scalars section can be
>  changed to "examples include".  The one in the goals section should be
>  replaced with something along the lines of "an accessible description that
>  people could put to use immediately and productively".
> 
>  There is no need to label this as establishing a subset.  Nobody expects a
>  quick start to be exhaustive.  And the wisdom of subsetting is
>  controversial.  I, for one, believe that a subset is a good starting point
>  but not a good stopping point.  You may decide never to go beyond the
>  subset you have defined over the past few days, but if you do, the market
>  will decide whether or not your stopping is a good idea.  And, if in the
>  future, you do reconsider, hopefully there will be a number of open
>  implementations available to you to build upon.
> 
>  So, my advice is to avoid the issue.  It is a distraction.
> 
>  Is it your goal to provide an on-ramp to SOAP 1.1, or is it your goal to
>  divide the SOAP community?  Think about that for a moment.
> 
>  - Sam Ruby
> 
>  P.S.  What got me concerned was the survey that you recently ran.  I
didn't
>  like any of the options.  Despite (or perhaps because of?) the results,
you
>  apparently have decided to made it your business to make the first option
>  on your survey a reality.
> 
> 
> 
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  soapbuilders-unsubscribe@[...].com
> 
> 
> 
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  soapbuilders-unsubscribe@[...].com
> 
> 
> 
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>