Dave, et al:

I've tried to review the BDG, to see what I could about
interoperability and/or SOAP 1.1 compliance. And I have to echo Sam's
words below: I'm confused.

I have one concrete thing I *know* breaks SOAP 1.1 and .NET: ID/HREF.
We send them, and it doesn't look like they are required.

But outside of that, I am really confused as to what a BDG compliant
app must accept. In my mind, you have to accept *everything* that is
a MUST in SOAP 1.1, including Section 5, if you want full interop.

Does this paragraph: "Where this specification is not in compliance
with the SOAP 1.1 specification, or the XML 1.0 specification, as of
4/2/01, this specification will change" mean that?

I think your best bet is to call this document a quickstart, as Sam
suggests below. Then, beef up the paragraph I quoted to say something
like the paragraph above it. At that point (IMHO) you would have a
most excellent document that will be of tremendous help to many, many
people.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Keith

PS Sorry for the delays (haven't been feeling well+too much work
since Wed. of last week.)


--- In soapbuilders@[...]., "Sam Ruby" <rubys@[...]..>  wrote:
>  <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@[...]..
> 
>  To:   soapbuilders@[...]..
>  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@[...]..
> 
> 
> 
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/