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

Re: Edits to part 2

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:30:59 -0700
Message-ID: <410A85D3.60307@oracle.com>
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org


Amelia A Lewis wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:10:28 -0400
>Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:10:05 -0400
>>>Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>* If the HTTP serialization thing is going to be a separate 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>thing and 
>>>      
>>>
>>>>not built into the binding, it should be a feature (not a module, 
>>>>since modules are specifically about SOAP) with its own 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>URI.  Hence we 
>>>      
>>>
>>>>should add the following under the title of section 3.3:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>But it isn't a feature, and it isn't a module.  Hugo labelled 
>>>it as the HTTP serialization of the AD feature, which I'm 
>>>comfortable with (much as I hate the term "serialization" 
>>>with respect to XML).
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't see any reason it shouldn't be a feature.  You yourself were
>>    
>>
>
>Because it isn't a feature.  It's a binding of a feature, a relationship
>between a feature and a binding.
>
+ 1. That is my interpretation as well.

>
>  
>
>>talking about doing this kind of "adding features to bindings" many
>>moons ago....  Making it a feature is a good thing because a) we have
>>syntax to indicate it's required (see below), and b) someone could write
>>a new HTTP binding which implemented that feature natively, and it would
>>be clear what they meant.
>>    
>>
>
>Uh, no.  This particular writeup is specific to the feature and the
>binding that it ties together.  Almost every such writeup will be.
>  
>
+1.

>  
>
>>>>--
>>>>This feature is identified with the URI 
>>>>http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/features/AD-HTTP
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>So I'm doing this as "This feature-binding ...".  But where, 
>>>if anywhere, would this URI be used?
>>>      
>>>
>>If this is optional, and you're requiring it, you have to have a way of
>>specifying that in WSDL, no?  That's why making it a feature is nice in
>>that we can just say:
>>
>><binding type="http">
>>  <feature uri="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/features/AD-HTTP"
>>           required="true"/>
>>  ...
>></binding>
>>
>>How else would you suggest we do this, since we're not making it a
>>native part of the HTTP binding?
>>    
>>
>
>It seems obvious that if the AD feature is turned on, and the binding is
>HTTP, that the HTTP AD feature binding must be used.  *shrug*
>
>  
>
>>>DONE with that modification.
>>>      
>>>
>>...pending resolution of these issues. :)
>>    
>>
>
>*shrug*  It isn't a feature.  A module isn't a feature, either, it's a
>binding of a feature to SOAP.
>
>Possibly a feature-binding needs a URI.  Possibly it's easiest and best at
>this stage to use the feature element syntax to indicate that a
>feature-binding is enabled for a particular binding.  
>
+1.

>But it *doesn't*
>make the binding of a feature into a feature!  And confusion of the
>language *won't* promote reader comprehension.
>  
>
+1 again.

>  
>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>* Sec 3.3.2, end of 2nd para, add "if possible" after "MUST 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>be turned 
>>>      
>>>
>>>>into an HTTP header".
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>DONE.
>>>
>>>Although that changes the meaning to, in effect, "MAY be 
>>>turned into an HTTP header."  MUST is MUST; not fulfilling a 
>>>MUST [MUST NOT] be permitted.  But then, we have a mandataory 
>>>mandatoriness in part one, so why not?
>>>      
>>>
>>This edit was because we say MUST and then have a bunch of "oh yeah and
>>if this is true you just ignore this one" types of statements.  Thus
>>it's MUST if possble.
>>    
>>
>
>*shrug*  So it's optional, under certain circumstances.  I think that "if
>possible" may be read as an general escape hatch, rather than an
>enumerated one.  It might be clearer to say "MUST with the exceptions
>enumerated below".
>
>  
>
>>>>* Missed a couple of still-unquoted URIs
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Argh.  I do not know where they are.  I don't see any.  Maybe 
>>>you want quotes around some entity thingies?
>>>      
>>>
>>Shouldn't references to the property name
>>"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl/feature/AD/data" be quoted?  See
>>paragraph in 3.1.2.
>>
>>Module name in first sentence of 3.2.
>>
>>Feature URI in 3.2.1.
>>
>>Property name in 3.2.2 (twice)
>>
>>Feature URI in 3.3.1
>>    
>>
>
>Working.  I have to run an errand.  Hugo also pointed out that I've got an
>abstract to update.  So, additional comments can be incorporated; I'll
>expect to close the editing this afternoon.
>
>Amy!
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Friday, 30 July 2004 13:34:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT