- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:52:50 +0100
- To: "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, moreau@crf.canon.fr, Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>
> what's wrong with simple-request-response Simplicity is somewhat subjective and doesn't really indicate the nature of the constraint (that its about a single request/response on isolation from all others that might be going on between the same two entities at about the same time). I'd prefer just plain 'request-response' adding the preface 'simple'. Stuart > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > > The spec editors took an action item to request input on > determining the > > name for "single-request-response MEP" described in part 2 [1]. John > > Ibbotson recently brought up the issue that it was not > particularly well > > described as to what was meant. > > > > The editors have taken the feedback and attempted to > clarify the text > > (already in [1]) but did not manage to come up with a > better short name, > > partly because such names tend to describe single aspects > rather than a > > complete picture. Therefore, unless we hear strongly otherwise, the > > proposal is to keep the existing short name. > > > > Comments? > > > > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > > mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com > > > > [1] > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part2-1.55.html#singlereqresp mep >
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 06:54:35 UTC