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

Re: LC-Issue #230

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:02:14 +0200
Message-ID: <3D2D8FE6.EBFDEDAB@crf.canon.fr>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC