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

RE: issue 227

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:43:26 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FEC@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'jones@research.att.com'" <jones@research.att.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: distobj@acm.org, jacek@systinet.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, xmlp-comments@w3.org, henrikn@microsoft.com

Mark(J), Noah,

For some reason Noah's message [1] that Mark(J) quotes has yet to show up in
my inbox (although I can see clearly that I'm included on the distribution)
- so apologies for not having attended to it sooner.

The simplest thing really for me to say at this juncture is that I am
entirely happy for Issue 227 to be resolved with the text that Noah proposes
in [1] and quoted by Mark Jones below.

Many thanks,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Aug/0073.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jones@research.att.com [mailto:jones@research.att.com]
> Sent: 22 August 2002 14:43
> 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
> Subject: RE: issue 227
> 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,
> 	        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
> 	analysis I gave at [1].  I was at the FTF, wrote the minutes in
> 	and am 95% confident of what we decided and why.  I think Stuart has

> 	signalled his willingness to live with this interpretation, and has
> 	nobody else object.
> 	What possibly remains in question is better resolution text of issue
> 	How about:
> 	"At it's face to face meeting in Palo Alto (July 31 - Aug 2, 2002),
> 	workgroup agreed to the following resolution of issue 227:
> 	*  A binding specification MAY require that certain "feature(s)" be
> 	in particular situations when using the binding.  In other words,
> 	binding specification may decline to provide any means of operation
> 	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.
> 	other words, the use by the binding specification must be consistent
> 	the specification for the feature itself.
> 	* Issue 227 in particular questions such mandatory use of the
> 	feature by the HTTP binding.  The WG has voted to make no change in
> 	mandatory use of the webMethod feature by the http binding.  The
> 	binding continues to mandate that a sending node determine the
> 	(e.g. POST, GET) to be used when transmitting a non-Response
> 	(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
> 	method names such as GET would be supplied explicitly or otherwise
on some 
> 	particular API;  it merely mandates that the sending node determine
> 	method in some implementation specific manner, and it declines to
> 	any standard way of inferring the method from other information
> 	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
> 	in this discussion. What think you all?
> 	[1]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 	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 10:45:12 UTC

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