W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Action Item - Part I: WSRX and MEP signaling on the wire

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:10:30 -0500
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <43BD6116.8050501@tibco.com>
I think the wording you give is better.  The original wording is correct
strictly from a SOAP point of view, emphasizing that a SOAP envelope
might not come back (because what comes back isn't SOAP).  From the
point of view that MEPs are trying to abstract properties of the
underlying transport, it seems better to emphasize (as you do) that
something always goes out and something always comes back.

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>David Hull writes:
>
>  
>
>>The SOAP request-(optional-)response MEP describes a SOAP message going 
>>    
>>
>out and something SOAPy optionally coming back.
>
>I think that needs a crucial but small rewording to:
>
>"The SOAP request-(optional-)response MEP describes a SOAP message going 
>out and something (optionally SOAPy) coming back."
>
>The MEP we're about to draft invariably sends something back.  Whether or 
>not it's "SOAPy" depends on the circumstance.  Right?
>
>Noah
>
>--------------------------------------
>Noah Mendelsohn 
>IBM Corporation
>One Rogers Street
>Cambridge, MA 02142
>1-617-693-4036
>--------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 18:10:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT