- We have a workflow process at UserLand which calls for each team member to periodically report on their status, what they're working on and what the next steps are. Since Jake and I have largely been working for the SOAP and XML-RPC communities for the last few days, I thought it made sense to cc my status report to the lists as well.Yesterday we spent most of the day drafting A Busy Developer's Guide . The work was done openly, with a live link from Scripting News. We finished at about 2PM, and then took comments  and made changes. The doc is not final, we're awaiting guidance from the soapbuilders list re several minor issues and one major one, the question of whether or not it's ok per the SOAP spec to make parameter names not significant and to make parameter order significant.Another potential deal-stopper, non-iso-8859 character encodings, has been addressed with an unambiguous statement  that BDG implementations are required to use 8859 encoding. Jake must add this to the spec itself, and address the other issues in the written spec.Our deadline for closing off BDG is 48 hours after it started, which is 9AM tomorrow Pacific. We want to address people's concerns now, so we can move forward on determining interop on the basis of this spec through the weekend.Early next week UserLand will issue a press release listing the names of the implementations that interop with BDG. We invite any participants in the SOAP interop process to join us in that statement.I hope we can put our differences aside and move quickly. We've made the investment in putting a clear stake in the ground. We want the process to have a closure point. We want to interop with every vendor that makes a tool or runtime that supports XML-over-HTTP. Our message is Let's Go, it's the right time.Dave
>Another potential deal-stopper, non-iso-8859 character encodings, hasAccording to the the XML standard you must always support UTF-8/16.
>been addressed with an unambiguous statement  that BDG
>implementations are required to use 8859 encoding. Jake must add this to
>the spec itself, and address the other issues in the written spec.
XML 1.0 (4.3.3 at W3C): "All XML processors must be able to read
entities in both the UTF-8 and UTF-16 encodings."
Or did I misinterpret that part of your post?
- No I don't think you misinterpreted it.
And there's our dirty laundry out in public.
This proves, I hope, that we believe in an open development process, and
honesty, even if it hurts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jan.larsson" <jlarsson@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Dave's Status
> >Another potential deal-stopper, non-iso-8859 character encodings, has
> >been addressed with an unambiguous statement  that BDG
> >implementations are required to use 8859 encoding. Jake must add this to
> >the spec itself, and address the other issues in the written spec.
> According to the the XML standard you must always support UTF-8/16.
> XML 1.0 (4.3.3 at W3C): "All XML processors must be able to read
> entities in both the UTF-8 and UTF-16 encodings."
> Or did I misinterpret that part of your post?
> Jan L.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- I am wiped out.At age 45 I can't come up with as much energy as I used to.However, I want to say that it's a priviledge to work with *all* of you, and that includes people I've barked at and disagreed with.I think we're making real progress at interop. We had more work to do than I thought we did.I'm finished working for today. Dinner is next, and then some conversation that has nothing to do with computers, and then tomorrow, I'm back at work, figuring out what to do next.Also if anyone has issues with anything UserLand has done or said, please don't hesitate to raise them. When we were working on RSS, I only found out much later that people resented that the spec had our copyright on it. Please don't let anything like that stand in the way of us working together. More than anything I want to get interop. Whether a doc has our copyright on it, or belongs to the community is not important. What matters is that our software work together and that we get a fair competitive environment around SOAP.Good evening, and...See y'all tomorrow.Dave
- Good morning fellow SOAP people..Here's the Sunday morning status report for UserLand's work on SOAP interop.1. Today I'm going to work on "A Busy Developer's Guide to SOAP 1.1 Interop". Note the addition of the word "interop" per the discussion with Joshua Allen.2. Most of what I'm going to do is move stuff around so the frightening stuff is in a set of notes at the bottom of the document. Many developers who use off-the-shelf XML parsers will not encounter the encoding issues, they "just work" -- so I feel these things can come later after the reader has mastered the basic concepts, and understands what SOAP *is* and then the notes serve as a troubleshooting guide, and will link to a discussion group where people can ask questions. I will start a Yahoo mail list for the BDG, that like the XML-RPC list, will be cc'd on posts to the DG. So if you want to help people work through the BDG, you can sign up for that list and get pings whenever someone has a question. This would be helpful to us at UserLand, if we can spread the support work over the community.3. The question of the namespace we use for the encoding remains, we're leaning heavily towards not qualifying it, so as not to weaken BDG or to create interop problems for apps that just implement the subset it describes. This is the one subjective decision we've faced in this process, all the others, imho, have been easily resolved, even at the cost of some long-term pain. That's life in the big leagues. ;->4. We've moved the BDG to SoapWare.Org . At first, for some reason I don't remember, it made sense to put it on the XML-RPC site, but now it makes more sense (to me) to get it clearly in the SOAP space. That's where I'm working on it today.5. This is the final call for feedback and pushback to the BDG document. If there are new issues, or if on a re-read of the document you find things that are awkwardly worded, or mistakes that have not been corrected, these are not intentional, so please tell us where we went wrong. Murphy rules specs as well as software. The BDG describes a subset of SOAP 1.1. Bug reports are appreciated. The Thanks To section in the spec is getting quite large, and this is a sign of what a great collaborative process this has been. Thank you.6. Yesterday we completed the deployment of the MailToTheFuture SOAP 1.1 app. It's an Internet-scriptable mail scheduler web app. We will do other apps, and work on the Manila-SOAP interface, etc. I want to do a group calendar, a workgroup file-sharer. Prefs distribution, interfaces with text editors running in other environments, interfaces to search engines and e-commerce applications. Other ideas are lurking in the shadows and we're always open to collaborative development on top of the layer I think we're getting close to interop on.7. Like Paul, it's time for me to get back to my Real Job, which of course includes teaching our users and friends how to use SOAP, and promoting it with all our power through our websites, and other channels of information flow.That's about it for now. One more day of full-out SOAP work for me, then it's off to something else, whatever that may be.Dave