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

RE: issue 227

From: <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200208221343.JAA21324@bual.research.att.com>
To: henrikn@microsoft.com, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.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

Henryk, MarkB, Stuart, Noah:

I like the re-formulation of the resolution text that Noah provided
(below).  Reading ahead through the subsequent messages sent by MarkB
and Stuart, it sounds like there is still a philosophical debate on
how specifically aware the sending application (vs. the sending node)
must be of the particular webMethod chosen.  I agree with Stuart and
Noah that we have generally stayed away from being prescriptive about
such details and that was not (in my recollection) an issue that was
directly in focus in the FTF discussion [else it obviously would have
engendered this particular debate at the FTF].  I would suggest
closing this issue with Noah's text.  MarkB can raise a separate issue
if necessary on this particular point, but this will allow us to get
past the bulk of 227.   Whew...

--mark

Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A-02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971

email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
  fax: (973) 236-6453


	From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
	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
	Subject: RE: issue 227
	Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:15:14 -0400

	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 Thursday, 22 August 2002 09:43:55 GMT

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