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

Re: Summary, 9-11 Nov 2004 WS Description WG FTF: two objections

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:14:28 -0500
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20041122111428.4a619761.alewis@tibco.com>

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:47:35 +0600
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> Of course; IBM too cares that SOAP/<whatever> as well as other
> bindings are indeed quite possible in WSDL for MEPs that are in-spec
> as well as not in-spec.
> 
> I'm not so sure that giving a URI and writing a few sentences achieves
> that however. I would much prefer to see an example in the primer
> going the whole nine yards: define a MEP, provide a binding and
> discuss how it works. That seems a hell of a lot more complete and
> convincing than our just taking the baby step of coming up with a URI!

Certainly that's more complete and convincing.  It's also unlikely to
happen, because there just won't be agreement within the WG on other
bindings.  Is the argument, then, that if the working group can't commit
to fully specifying a binding, it shouldn't provide any guidance, or
even help as requested by those who are doing so?

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 16:14:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT