W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Issue 6413 - just thinking

From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:51:59 +0100
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAFD3C963.93844600-ON802575AE.0034D32E-802575AE.003631B1@uk.ibm.com>
Yves

I guess that by 'more general' you mean that a separate fragment spec 
would be re-usable outside the context of WS-Transfer?   In theory, I 
could imagine this might be a possibility but, in practice, I can't think 
of a real example.  I'm concerned that we'd create an extra specification 
that would never be used outside the context of WS-T.  Worse still, a high 
proportion of use cases will require both specs so ultimately they will be 
read as a single specification.

That said, I fully understand the argument to keep the WS-T specification 
'pure' for scenarios that don't implement fragments.  By placing the 
fragment text in the appendix (rather than the main body), we'll do 
exactly that. 

Best regards
Katy



From:
Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
To:
Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc:
Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>, 
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, 
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Date:
06/05/2009 08:52
Subject:
Re: Issue 6413 - just thinking



On Tue, 5 May 2009, Doug Davis wrote:

> Geoff,
>  Allow me to turn it around for a sec... if the general premise of
> "strongly encouraging" is agreed to, and people do not "want a
> proliferation of fragment specs", then an obvious question (to me 
anyway)
> is: what's so bad about having it in Transfer?  I've heard (and 
understand

If the fragment definition is in Transfer, then it is quite likely 
somebody else will define another "fragment spec" be it more general, or 
attached to another spec. That's why having a standalone document for 
fragment definition makes far more sense, it can be referred from 
Transfer, but also from other specs that don't want to reuse Transfer.

As I said during the call, fragments definition are more linked to the
addressing or resources than the action on them (and for the record, 
having the action distinct form the URI of the service is, well, 
suboptimal. At least transfer allows action to be a set of properties, but 

I digress ;) ).

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves










Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 09:52:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:17:59 GMT