Here’s a neat idea from Mike about how to bridge the divide between WS/SOA advocates, and Web folks;

What I’d really like to see here is the application of a well-known conflict management technique in which each side has to state the other side’s position, to the other’s satisfaction, before discussing the disagreement.


So, why don’t the Web standards suffice for computer/computer interactions? People have been talking past each other on this topic for years now. How about it? Maybe Mark Baker could re-state his understanding of why Don Box thinks they don’t … and vice versa … before wrapping this permathread around the blogosphere one more time.

Hang on there … I thought my task was to attempt to state Don’s position, no? You seem to have done an adequate job at that when you stated “Don Box thinks they don’t suffice”, which I agree with. Though I could probably take a stab at explaining why Don believes this, it would really just be conjecture, and doesn’t seem to be required of me by this process.

And just to clarify, I don’t think “sufficiency” is necessarily the right test; on occasion, even me – yes, yours truly, the REST fanatic – has used non-uniform semantics. I just happen to think that uniform semantics suffice for, oh, say, 97% of stuff you might need to do when integrating applications over the Internet using document based messaging. “uniform” is the ultimate in generality, after all.

Well, those new specs sure got a thorough thrashing, although perhaps indirectly. Tim Bray and Sean Mcgrath sum it all up for me, as usual.