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

Re: TBTF: Proposed resolution issue 179

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:24:24 +0000
Message-ID: <3C6A3ED8.2010401@sun.com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> Looks good - only comment is that "support" may be understood in many
> different--does it mean "define" or "enable", or both? We saw this many
> times in the requirements document [1]. In this case, I think we mean
> both so what about saying "define or enable" instead or something to
> that effect?
>

Enable maybe. I would hope that there would be less MEPs than bindings - 
or to put it another way I would expect bindings to declare support 
(there's that word again) for one or more MEPs from a common external 
set rather than define its own. For me that was one of the points of the 
binding framework: common features supported by multiple bindings.

Marc.

 
> 
>>""A binding specification MUST support one or more Message Exchange 
>>Patterns.  A binding specification MAY state that it supports 
>>additional 
>>features,
>>in which case the binding specification MUST provide for 
>>maintaining state, performing processing, and transmitting 
>>information in a manner consistent with the specification for 
>>those features."
>>
> 
> Henrik
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlp-reqs-20010319/
> 
> 


-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 05:24:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT