Michael wrote:
> IMHO, standardization of this stuff makes sense, even though *at 
> present* the different implementation components that need to exchange 
> routing information tend to be proprietary or custom-written.  

agreed - we've had to implement our own addressing headers to route 
asynchronous messages in the absence of an interoperable standard 
with clear IP. 

> After all, you have a bunch of fierce competitors coming to the W3C and 
> saying that they would like to see a Recommendation for this so that 
> they can interoperate better. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of 
> the doubt.  

me too, and their coming to the W3C has been backed by a number of end-user
organisations petitioning them directly and indirectly inside fora such 
as the WS-I.

> The absolutely last thing the W3C should do, assuming they want to ever 
> get a web services submission again, is say "thanks, but no thanks, we 
> don't think that needs to be standardized." 
  
i wonder if the worry isn't the other way around. if the submission of 
WS-Addressing is seen by vendors as a success (as opposed to SOAP 1.2 and 
WSDL 2.0 which have taken a long time to standardise) then the W3C may be 
swamped by 100 other competing WS-* specs all waiting to be ratified.

It's a fine line the W3C has to now tread - do they give these half-made
specs like WS-Addressing (or even WS-MD) a "rubber stamp" and risk 
devaluing the W3C brand, or risk timely adoption by applying full 
participation and lengthy process to a Recommendation?

Paul

--
Paul Sumner Downey
http://blog.whatfettle.com