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

discussion style (was: Re: Revised Asynch Binding)

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:59:03 +0600
Message-ID: <03a401c4687c$fa4b2a80$f24e4109@LANKABOOK>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes:
> Finally, the style of discussion that has gotten a bit inappropriate 
> on this issue.  I've been interpreting a specification as the words 
> are written, not "doing a full-scale violation", nor a "liberal 
> interpretation". 

I apologize; I was not trying to be accusative like that .. I intended
those statements in a light-hearted sense. However, I can see that they
can be interpreted differently; so please accept my apologies and
I'll be more formal/careful hereafter (at least on this topic)!

> If I've made a mistake, and that's entirely 
> possible, then point out where in the spec.  Particularly, show me
> where it says in the SOAP spec that a WSDL binding cannot use 2 
> soap request response MEPs that are each correctly use the SOAP
> HTTP  binding.  

I'll reply to this and other technical points separately in a little
while (gotta wake up a bit more).

Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 22:04:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:49 UTC