RE: comments on WS Desc Requirements draft of 29 April 2002

Per the WG teleconference today, I have updated the current requirements
draft [1] to reflect these recommendations.

--Jeff

[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-re
qs.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:14 AM
> To: Jeffrey Schlimmer
> Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: Re: comments on WS Desc Requirements draft of 29 April 2002
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> +1 to option 1). Option 2) has a different meaning.
> 
> +1 to all your other suggestions.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote:
> > REQUIREMENT
> > R046
> > The description language MUST allow describing Messages independent
of
> > specific wire format. (From JS. Last discussed 11 April, 2002.)
> >
> > COMMENT
> > R046 leaves the term "wire format" undefined.  I have heard this
term
> > often before, but never before in a context where the details of
what is
> > meant matter quite so much.  A definition or at least an example
would
> > be useful.  (Big-endian vs. little-endian? HTTP vs. SMTP?  ASCII vs
> > UTF-7 vs UTF-8 vs Shift-JIS vs EBCDIC vs UTF-16?  All of the above?
None
> > of the above?)
> >
> > RECOMMENDATION
> > Reword: "The description language MUST describe Messages independent
> > from transfer encodings." or "The description language MUST describe
> > Messages in terms of the XML Infoset."
> 
>