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

RE: issue 227

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:33:30 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FE0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>, xmlp-comments@w3.org, jacek@systinet.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr

Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 20 August 2002 16:13
> 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]
> > 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.

I'm not sure that the ball is in my court. I've sought clarification on the
resolution of Issue 227 as recorded in xmlp-comments. I'm actually happy
with the clarification that I received from Mark Jones. I don't think there
is anything I can do to resolve different articulations of the WG's

> > As you might expect I am happy with Mark's clarification, although I
> > 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.

I don't think that strand of the discussion ever reached concensus.

> > 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
> > 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.

...and that's a MUST for interop is it? Seems somewhat over specific to me.

I am not going to make an issue of this. I will express my surprise that the
WG is comfortable with such a constraint. It can certainly impose such the
constraint. I don't believe it is necessary to do so.

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


Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 13:33:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:59 UTC