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

Re: issue 227

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:49:06 -0400
To: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>
Cc: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xmlp-comments@w3.org, jacek@systinet.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, Mark Baker <mbaker@idokorro.com>, moreau@crf.canon.fr
Message-ID: <20020819164905.A22941@www.markbaker.ca>

(leaving xmlp-comments CCd, but perhaps we need to take this to
xml-dist-app - Stuart?)

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 04:08:41PM -0400, Mark A. Jones wrote:
> >>* 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>

I think there's a disconnect in terminology here.

At the f2f, the proposal was;

] [scribenrm] DF: Proposal...(1) we accept that bindings can specify
] that features are mandatory (2) we sweep the spec to ensure that's
] clear (3) leave web method as a mandatory feature of the http
] binding...i.e. that applications must supply a value for the
] property...and to make sure the spec is clear on that point.

 -- http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/08/f2f-minutes-day1.html

"that applications must supply a value for the property" maps, I believe,
to Stuart's notion of "use".

Does that make sense?  As can be seen in the minutes, I was very clear
to verify that this was the case;

] <MarkB> does "must supply a value" imply a default?
[...]
] [MarkB] ah, ok, *application* must supply ... that's ok

Are we all in synch?

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 17:04:08 GMT

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