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

RE: issue 227

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:49:29 -0400
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: distobj@acm.org, henrikn@microsoft.com, jacek@systinet.com, "'jones@research.att.com'" <jones@research.att.com>, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, xmlp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0E04093E.D619868B-ON85256C1D.0050BA0D@lotus.com>

There seems to be a bug in routing mail from me to anyone in HP (and as 
far as I can tell, only HP).  If someone would suggest to Stuart that he 
read the thread in the archives, I would appreciate it. 

I have reported this problem to our email maintenance staff, who will no 
doubt resolve it within a few weeks.  Cheers.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
08/22/2002 10:43 AM

 
        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
        Subject:        RE: issue 227


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,

Stuart
[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,
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 10:51:22 GMT

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