On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:16:40PM -0800, Francis McCabe wrote: > A *constrained interface* that is coherent with this view would, in my > opinion, be a great tool for achieving interoperability. Anything less, > will be,...less. Cool. I was perfectly happy to proceed down this path with the WG, as long as there was general recognition that this was progress (which there wasn't at the time, though I think many would now agree with you). If you recall a requirement that I championed; o AR023.7.1 defines or identifies a base interface that all Web services can implement, that permits communication without a priori knowledge of the service. -- http://www.w3.org/TR/wsa-reqs#AR023.7.1 But whatever the WG would have come up with for that, it would have been a simple matter to map it to the uniform interface. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.caReceived on Monday, 9 February 2004 00:59:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:26 GMT