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

RE: Proposed Framework Text for F2F (was RE: TBTF: In-context Framework Intro.)

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:44:15 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D05801EE8@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: <Chris.Ferris@sun.com>, <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, <hugo@w3.org>, <jones@research.att.com>, <marc.hadley@sun.com>, <ohurley@iona.com>, <ylafon@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>

Here is a proposal for an updated ednote that may improve understanding
the issue. I find it slightly problematic that the current note talks
about "binding specifications in particular, vs. other software" as
specifications and software doesn't seem to compare.

What about:

"There is still some discussion about whether we should say more about
how communicating SOAP nodes determine whether to express features as
part of the underlying protocol binding or within the SOAP envelope

Does this capture it?


>Not to be picky nor to put additional burden on Stuart but I 
>am slightly uncomfortable with the ednote as it stands. I 
>realize that the purpose is to give some flexibility in how we 
>want to move forward. However, it seems to be such a central 
>part of the model that I am wondering whether it would be good 
>to qualify the differences a bit more explicitly so that 
>people don't get the impression that we are completely opening 
>up the floor to suggestions - this was at least not my 
>impression from today's meeting.
>Could we for example promote Noah's suggestion by providing an 
>alternative piece of text?
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 20:46:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:03 UTC