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

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

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:25:09 -0400
Message-ID: <3CC00CA5.8090705@sun.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, 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>
request-response would work for me.

Williams, Stuart wrote:

>>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 08:26:29 GMT

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