W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2005

RE: LC344#5: clarification needed

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:40:48 +1000
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F58E9FA@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@opensource.lk>
Cc: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

My inner pedant feels a need to dispute this point, and I'm humouring it

	"MEPs don't have a concept of inbound vs outbound" 

If we consider the MEPs which have names like "in-only", "in-out",
"out-only", "out-in", it looks like they do involve the concepts of
in-bound and out-bound...

The way I manage to give some semblence of meaning to the "MEP with an
initial message" concept was, as I mentioned, to read it as "MEP with an
initial inbound message", which would mean "in-only" and "in-out", but
not "out-only" and "out-in".

Anyway, enough catering to my inner (loud-mouth) pedant. :-)

Tony Rogers

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2005 10:14
To: Rogers, Tony
Cc: Hugo Haas; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: LC344#5: clarification needed

On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 06:43 +1000, Rogers, Tony wrote:
> The only interpretation I have managed to come up with for this odd 
> structure is "any MEP with an initial input message" - implying that 
> it is not applicable to MEPs where the first message is out-bound.

MEPs don't have a concept of inbound vs outbound .. they talk about
messages going between different parties. Of course each message is
inbound to someone and outbound from someone else.

> I'm happy to drop the offending bits.


Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 01:41:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:57 UTC