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.

+1.

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,
Kevin
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 22:25:45 GMT

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