I think Jorgen misses part of the point of the team comment for WS-Transfer, when he writes; The W3C Staff comments on WS-Transfer make interesting reading – and really summarize what WS-Transfer is all about: […] WS-Transfer does not have all the features of HTTP regarding the manipulation of representations, such as caching, or content… Read More »
I was just about to blog about this, when I noticed Lucas already did it for me… (link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
“I wonder if the editors have any more sense of how wrong this is than the authors?” Indeed, it seems like critical thinking and principled design has been sacrificed at the altar of SOA. Check your brains at the door, please! (link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
If Rob was right, then this spec can only be an attempt by Microsoft to get the other co-submitters to implement and deploy a protocol which is vastly inferior to HTTP. Sounds too insidious to me. I think it’s just bad design.
Hmm, March 15. Me thinks this was published a couple of weeks early. This is not progress. It’s reinventing (very poorly) a perfectly good and pervasively deployed wheel. Sigh. (link) [del.icio.us/distobj]