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

RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:52:50 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192AF4@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
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 GMT

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