W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HTTP binding

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:22:43 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D06F997B3@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

FWIW, given that I don't think in any way we limit ourselves by being
crisp in the binding, I would agree with the direction you indicate and
share the concern of defining interoperability. I think we have
existence proof that attachments can be added in a modular manner.

Henrik 

>Well, if the choice were mine alone I think I would still go with the 
>tighter definition of our binding.  At this point in the WG's 
>work, I can 
>compromise in the interest of moving forward.  Both positions 
>have been 
>clearly stated, and I do see merit in both.  I suggest we go with 
>whichever approach has a preponderance of support, which may 
>well be the 
>"looser" one.  Of course, if someone else has a lie-down-in-the-road 
>position either way, that needs to be resolved.  I don't, but 
>my feeling 
>is moderately strong, but I could well be wrong. 
>
>So I suggest we move ahead.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 15:22:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT