Re: issue: SOAP requirements

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Interestingly enough, I also agree with Dare's comments.  I am not 
saying that a SOAP API is not necessary, I just haven't seen the reasons 
why it is necessary spelled out all that clearly; nor have I seen 
adequate effort going in to fleshing that API out properly.  As was 
originally stated, simply saying that an entry or feed can be wrapped 
into a SOAP envelope is horribly inadequate.  IMHO, The spec should 
outline not only how the SOAP API works, but the various conditions that 
may make use of the SOAP API a requirement.


- James M Snell

Robert Sayre wrote:
> Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>
> > I find the latter extremely worrying given that a
> > number of weblog tool vendors have expressed interest
> > in a SOAP API that this WG has consistently neglected
> > that area of the spec. 
>
>
> Fully agree.
>
> > This is a recipe for lack of interoperability and will
> > likely mirror the current landscape in weblog APIs
> > where any developer new to the space has to reverse
> > engineer the behavior of popular client and server
> > tools to know what to implement. 
>
>
> Fully agree.
>
> Robert Sayre