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

RE: issue 227

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:47:49 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FD7@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark A. Jones'" <jones@research.att.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>

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the clarifications... a couple more comments below, mostly happy
if things are indeed resolved as clarlified.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark A. Jones [mailto:jones@research.att.com]
> Sent: 19 August 2002 21:09
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'xmlp-comments@w3.org'; 'jacek@systinet.com'; 
> 'marc.hadley@sun.com';
> 'mbaker@idokorro.com'; 'moreau@crf.canon.fr'
> Subject: Re: issue 227
> 
> 
> 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>

Ok...

<snip/>

> >>* 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>

Ok...  I am happy with that (I had expected the WG to resolve in favour of
mandatory 'use' - so this is a pleasant surprise). 

Will the HTTP binding specification specify the bindings behaviour in the
event that the Web Method feature is *not* used by a client of the HTTP
binding? At present, if webmeth:Method is not present or unset in the
relevant message exchange context, the binding specification makes not
statement about what HTTP method should be used (see original statement of
Issue #227 for suggested remedies).

<snip/>

> >>* 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>
> 

<snip/>
 
> -- 
> 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

Many thanks and best regards

Stuart
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 16:48:29 GMT

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