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

Re: issue 227

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:03:23 -0400
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, jacek@systinet.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xmlp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020820200323.J25814@www.markbaker.ca>

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 02:09:23PM -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 3)  Here's where we have to be careful.  These are all abstractions in any 
> case, and nothing at any level of the properties presentation (I.e. 
> feature-based or otherwise) says how to structure your code or APIs.   In 
> your favorite Java/PERL/whatever implementation you can indeed infer 
> methods in a wide variety of ways.

There's a middle ground here that I have in mind, though I haven't
talked about it because it would complicate things to propose it.
Suffice it to say that I prefer that we err on the side of caution, and
require that the method be explicitly set by the application, compared
to the alternative on the table of providing no guidance and saying that
it's ok to hide the method from the application developer by providing a
default, inferring it from MEP, etc..

If it would help for me to describe my middle ground approach, then I'd
be happy to do so.

>   You must merely be capable of 
> answering the question when asked:  did your implementation behave as if 
> there was a known, stable value for the web method, and if so, to it 
> behave in a manner conformant with the feature spec.
> I believe that all this was settled quite crisply and finally at the F2F. 
> Where is the remaining ambuguity or discomfort (obviously I understand 
> some of the discomfort, as the F2F decision was clearly a compromise in 
> the view of some, but I thought it was settled.)

I thought it was settled too; the application must specify a Web method,
as the proposal clearly stated.  8-/  Are there varying interpretations
of "application" perhaps?  I guess I don't see where the disconnect is in
interpreting the proposal that we voted to adopt, although I do see the
problem with the proposed resolution text.


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 20:31:39 UTC

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