Re: issue 227

Hi Stuart,

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:43:57AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Well it would appear that the resolution recorded in xmlp-comments [1] may
> not fully reflect what the WG appears to have agreed at the F2F.

Agreed.  I guess the ball's in your court in terms of deciding what you
want to do next; just patch the resolution based on what was agreed at
the f2f (though I don't believe that the minutes haven't yet been
approved), or reopen the issue.

> As you might expect I am happy with Mark's clarification, although I imagine
> that you are not ;-).

8-)

> If we examine the other case... ie.. mandatory applies to use of the
> feature... I have two remarks:
> 
> 1) IMO the case for making use 'mandatory' has not been made.

I think it was made, in part, during the discussion about inferring the
method from the MEP; that not only can the method not be inferred, but
that the application should specify it explicitly.  That's my
recollection anyhow.  I agree that probably wasn't spelled out as an
explicit position by anyone.

> 2) It is impossible for an external observer to assess compliance with a
> MUST use constraint on the Web Method feature - so the constraint is largely
> meaningless.

I think it's quite testable at design time, just not at run time; just
write some code that uses the APIs provided by the library, and see if
the library lets you send a message without specifying a method; if it
does, it's not compliant.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com