- 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
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 UTC