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

RE: issue 227

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:15:14 -0400
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: distobj@acm.org, jacek@systinet.com, jones@research.att.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xmlp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0064EF43.4BB25F4B-ON85256C1C.00794D37@lotus.com>

Well, I've read the whole thread now, and I'm still most comfortable with 
analysis I gave at [1].  I was at the FTF, wrote the minutes in question, 
and am 95% confident of what we decided and why.  I think Stuart has 
signalled his willingness to live with this interpretation, and has heard 
nobody else object.

What possibly remains in question is better resolution text of issue 227. 
How about:

"At it's face to face meeting in Palo Alto (July 31 - Aug 2, 2002), the 
workgroup agreed to the following resolution of issue 227:

*  A binding specification MAY require that certain "feature(s)" be used 
in particular situations when using the binding.  In other words, the 
binding specification may decline to provide any means of operation when 
such feature is not used.

* Whether use of a feature is optional or mandatory (in the sense 
described above), a feature must always be used correctly when used.  In 
other words, the use by the binding specification must be consistent with 
the specification for the feature itself.

* Issue 227 in particular questions such mandatory use of the webMethod 
feature by the HTTP binding.  The WG has voted to make no change in this 
mandatory use of the webMethod feature by the http binding.  The HTTP 
binding continues to mandate that a sending node determine the webMethod 
(e.g. POST, GET) to be used when transmitting a non-Response message. 
(Note that the entire property-based binding framework is abstract:  at no 
point does the HTTP binding attempt to describe a particular API or 
implementation structure, so this resolution says nothing about whether 
method names such as GET would be supplied explicitly or otherwise on some 
particular API;  it merely mandates that the sending node determine the 
method in some implementation specific manner, and it declines to supply 
any standard way of inferring the method from other information provided 
with the message to be transmitted."

Does that do it?  If so, I'd like to propose that we offer this to the WG 
and move on.  I believe it exactly matches what the WG voted, and 
clarifies the various ambiguities that have been perceived by participants 
in this discussion. What think you all?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Aug/0063.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 18:18:18 GMT

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