W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > August 2002

RE: resolution of issue 228

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:53:47 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FB9@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org


I could be happy with this resolution depending on the actual resolution of

I actually prefer the previous text to this replacement because it is closer
to being explicit about what Web Methods may be used with the exchange
patterns we have defined so far. The resolution text implies a that a degree
of judgement is required on the part of someone (who?) that a given mep and
web method are compatible - I think judgements will differ in which case
this specifies nothing.

Alternatives are to:

a) Place the onus on a MEP specification to state what Web Methods may be
used in conjunction with that MEP for those bindings that provide both Web
Method and the given MEP (and state what Web Method (if any) is used by

b) Place the onus on the Web Method feature specification to state what MEPs
a given Web Method may be use with. 

c) Allow either MEP or Web Method to default in the event of
underspecification in a message exchange context (ie. Web Method used with
unspecified MEP or MEP used with unspecified Web Method).

d) Recognise that Web Method and MEP are not orthogonal and rethink the
whole business of MEP and Web Method.

I think resolution of this issue is in extricably linked to and subordinate
to the resolution of #227.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org]
> Sent: 30 July 2002 20:11
> To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Cc: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: resolution of issue 228
> Stuart,
> During the last f2f, the WG came up with this decision to 
> close issue 228
> [1]:
> <<
>   Replace last paragraph of [2] with "Bindings implementing this feature
>   MUST employee a Message Exchange Pattern with semantics that are
>   compatible with the web method selected.  For example, the (link to
>   response only)  pattern is compatible with GET.
> >>
> If you feel that this does not adequately address the issue that you
> raised, please contact the WG ASAP.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x228
> [2]

Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 07:56:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:59 UTC