W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2001

RE: TBTF: In-context Framework Intro.

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:28:50 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F0362F5D7@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, "Mountain, Highland M" <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, Chris.Ferris@sun.com, fallside@us.ibm.com, gdaniels@macromedia.com, hugo@w3.org, jones@research.att.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, ohurley@iona.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, ylafon@w3.org
Hi Henrik et al.,

Thanks for taking a crack at this. I've attached a diff version (html and
.doc) that I've generated by doing a document compare on Noah's and Henrik's
versions. I think it highlights the differences in the first couple of pages
more clearly.

I have a couple of concerns:

1) I am concerned that we have removed all distinction between
"transport/underlying protocol message exchange patterns" and end-2-end SOAP
provided message exchange patterns. Transport/underlying protocol MEPs are
scoped for a single hop. SOAP provided MEPs are the patterns that the SOAP
layer provides to the things that use SOAP. I think the undistinguished use
of plain MEP will lead to confusion. I think that there is a difference
between what a binding provides to SOAP and what SOAP provides to SOAP
applications which we need to be clear about.

2) I am concerned about the removal of all the stuff that Noah signalled he
had not touched. This probably bears on what it was we thought we'd agreed
as a compromise. 

I think that my take away was that we agreed that the property based style
of describing features and MEPs would be a none normative convention that we
do use within our own work (HTTP binding, MEP and feature descriptions) and
encourage others to adopt. The diagram and the narrative that accompanies
the diagram effectively provide the setup for that non-normative
convention... which needs to be explained somewhere if it is not part of
Part 1.

The MEP description and the HTTP binding description as we have them at the
moment, both rely on the diagram (now removed) and the accompanying
narrative that tries to explain the diagram.

I am concerned that we are edging back toward the point that we were
circling around prior to the development of the property base mep, http
binding and introduction - but I may be misreading the signals.

Best regards

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 20 November 2001 06:29
> To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com; Mountain, Highland M;
> Chris.Ferris@sun.com; fallside@us.ibm.com; gdaniels@macromedia.com;
> hugo@w3.org; jones@research.att.com; marc.hadley@sun.com;
> mnot@akamai.com; ohurley@iona.com; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com; ylafon@w3.org
> Subject: RE: TBTF: In-context Framework Intro.
> 
> 
> 
> I have continued the editing of Noah's work and here is the result - I
> think we are getting close! I found a lot of duplication - 
> have cleaned
> it up somewhat. I have included both the HTML version and the Word
> version with change bars (don't know how to export them to HTML).
> 
> Hugo, Yves, rather than sending the whole thing to everybody on
> xml-dist-app, would it be possible to upload this some place 
> on the W3C
> site?
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> 
> >I haven't had time to reread all the discussion, but here is a 
> >significant edit to the draft Highland circulated.  I think 
> >it's a good start toward what we agreed on the phone today.  
> >The .HTM and .DOC files are the same content;  choose 
> >whichever is more convenient.  The .gif is unchanged. I'll be 
> >in and out at work tomorrow, then (nominally) on vacation next 
> >week.  Will check for email marked urgent from time to time, 
> >especially Mon-Wed.
> >
> 



Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 10:53:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:14 GMT