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

Re: issue 227

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 15:18:01 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FBF@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, "'jones@research.att.com'" <jones@research.att.com>
Cc: "'jacek@systinet.com'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "'jones@research.att.com'" <jones@research.att.com>, "'marc.hadley@sun.com'" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "'mbaker@idokorro.com'" <mbaker@idokorro.com>, "'moreau@crf.canon.fr'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>

Mark,

> Regarding issue 227 on the SOAP issues list, the following four
> findings obtain:
> * Bindings may specify that features are mandatory.

The lack of any distinction between mandatory 'provision' and mandatory
'use' is not addressed by this clause. Mandatory provision has always been
an aspect of the framework, so I assume that this should be taken as
meaning: "Bindings may specify that the *use* of particular features is
mandatory." Is that correct?

> * We need to sweep through the spec to ensure that the above point is
clear.

:-)

> * We will leave 'web method' as a mandatory feature of the http binding.

The status quo is mandatory provision... which is fine. Mandatory use... I
have seen no justification for such a constraint.

> * It is possible for a binding to make all features optional.

Again could be clearer about 'use' or 'provision'.

> Mark Jones
> AT&T

With regard to the first bullet, I am ok with it being part of the framework
that bindings may make the use of particular features mandatory. That
restores the position that binding users can make correct use of a binding
based on knowledge of the framework (any realisation of which would include
provision of a the use of a supported feature to be marked as mandatory) and
the binding supported features alone, without *having* to know in particular
what underlying protocol is being bound to.

This was my prinicple concern in raising this issue... the undermining of
the intent of the framework.

If mandatory 'use' of the Web Method feature is what is intended by the 3rd
bullet, then IMO this has not been adequately justified... cf. prinicple of
minimal constraint.

Best regards

Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 10:19:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT