W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

RE: 2004-02-12 Action Item: Clarification to the OperationName feature

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:07:13 -0500
To: Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040222180713.Q15631@www.markbaker.ca>


> > I'm not sure whether having the Operation Name in the message 
> > is always necessary
> +1 to that. To paraphrase a regularly paraphrased phrase: "The first
> thing you have to learn is that there is no operation."

Well, there is an operation, because the message is requesting that
*something* be done, no?  Not including it in the message just makes
the message less self-descriptive than the alternative of putting the
operation name in it.  I like self-descriptiveness, so I want to see
it there.

Of course, you could use a generic method. 8-)

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Sunday, 22 February 2004 18:06:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:46 UTC