- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:02:14 +0200
- To: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>
- CC: "'gdaniels@macromedia.com'" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Upon reflexion, I think this is already where we are; and in fact we may have set a trend: isn't the Web Method feature named by a URI already? How else would we name features that are not modules, not MEPs and not bindings? How would we, for example, name a (hypothetical) attachment feature? Features are good; URIs are better. ;-) +1 to Glen's proposal. Jean-Jacques. Don Mullen wrote: > The problem raised in the discussion of issue LC-230 is that SOAP features > may be abstract, and it might be difficult to give a definitive URI to them, > whereas SOAP modules are concrete, expressed as SOAP headers. > It is unclear to me whether this is a valid argument.
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 10:02:39 UTC