- 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
In-Reply-To=<37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA801CD21F@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk> References=<37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA801CD21F@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk> > > 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. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Sunday, 22 February 2004 18:06:33 UTC