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: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:25:07 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0B1C14A0@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "'Amelia A Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org

>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis

>Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Amy, I'm at a loss to understand what TIBCO would lose if TIBCO 
>> were to define the MEP URI too when they publish the binding.
>Recognition, in the WSDL 2.0 specification, that protocols other than
>HTTP, based on networking paradigms other than client/server, 
>are within
>the capabilities and design intent of WSDL 2.0.
>I don't think that TIBCO is the only company hoping for such a clearly
>marked capability, not even the only WG participant hoping so.


Of course any company can define their own MEPs. Such private spec will help their own customers and partners, but has little/no use for other companies that has similar need. 

Best Regards,
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 22:25:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:51 UTC