W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

Re: CR114: Discrepancy between initial proposal and resolution (apparently)

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:20:20 +0100
To: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: "'WSD Public'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <45D31AA4.20304@crf.canon.fr>

request-optional-response is a bit of a misnommer, since strictly 
speaking it is a revised version of the original request-response MEP, 
not a new MEP, AFAIU. It keeps the name and URI of the original 
request-response MEP; only the description (and behaviour) is different.

I have a maybe existential question: which version of the SOAP 1.2 spec 
should we be pointing to? Both? Second Edition only?

I assume that, when published, Second Edition will subsume the Initial 
Recommendation, so I'd be tempted by the latter. But maybe I'm missing 
something and we should do the former instead?

JJ.

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> I agree the minutes are a bit confusing.  Just as background, the full set
> of options that are worth considering (document status aside) are:
>
>   a. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-optional-response (SOAP 1.2 SE)
>   b. robust-in-only -> SOAP response
>   c. robust-in-only -> SOAP one-way (WD)
>   d. in-only -> SOAP request-optional-response (SOAP 1.2 SE)
>   e. in-only -> SOAP response
>   f. in-only -> SOAP one-way (WD)
>
> I assume the minutes should record that we approved a and d.  I don't think
> c makes any sense, or that f is practically possible.  But b and e also seem
> reasonable.
>
> Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 8:16 AM
>> To: WSD Public
>> Subject: CR114: Discrepancy between initial proposal and resolution
>> (apparently)
>>
>>
>> I'd like to reopen CR144.
>>
>> Youenn's initial request was to add the following mappings:
>> a. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-optional response (SOAP 1.2 Second
>> Edition)
>> b. in-only -> SOAP 1-way (Working Draft)
>>
>> It seems the WG decided instead:
>> c. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-response (SOAP 1.2 Initial Edition)
>> d. in-only -> SOAP request-response (SOAP 1.2 Initial Edition)
>>
>> This is quite a substantial difference.
>>
>> a+b seems to make more sense in the long run, but cannot be implemented
>> now (WD + SE).
>>
>> c+d seems like an interim, moderately attractive solution.
>>
>> (Am I missing something obvious?)
>>
>> So my question is: do we really want to implement c+d now or should we
>> proceed with no-action instead?
>>
>> JJ.
>>     
>
>   
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 14:20:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:46 GMT