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

Re: issue 227

From: Mark A. Jones <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:08:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3D615049.1030703@research.att.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, "'jacek@systinet.com'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "'marc.hadley@sun.com'" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "'mbaker@idokorro.com'" <mbaker@idokorro.com>, "'moreau@crf.canon.fr'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>

Stuart,

Sorry if my summary was overly cryptic.  I believe the editors will
probably be clearer in their prose, but they should also note your
comment.  My clarifications are in-line below.


Williams, Stuart wrote:

> 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?


<maj>correct</maj>


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


<maj>:-)</maj>


> 
> 
>>* 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.


<maj>'Mandatory' here means provision.  'use' is discretionary.</maj>


> 
> 
>>* It is possible for a binding to make all features optional.
>>
> 
> Again could be clearer about 'use' or 'provision'.


<maj>This was added to ensure that a binding could be specified 
(provision) to have no obligatory features.  In this case, 'use'
would have to likewise follow 'provision'.</maj>


> 
> 
>>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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A-02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971

email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
   fax: (973) 236-6453
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 16:09:13 GMT

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