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 11:44:27 -0400
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, jacek@systinet.com, jones@research.att.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xmlp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF360AA46D.F7D65FA6-ON85256C1D.00558FE5@lotus.com>

Is it not reasonable to assume that the TAG is familiar with the technical 
details of the drafts against which they are openning issues?  The general 
treatment of applications and the (very intentional) avoidance of 
discussion of implementation structures should be clear to the TAG and 
anyone else who was read the working drafts in question.  I'm not 
convinced that clarification is necessary.  Furthermore, just as it's 
likely that an API for TCP/IP will indeed provide the stream to be sent as 
input (even though the TCP spec properly says nothing about where the 
stream comes from), I think we're doing nothing to preclude others from 
giving such control over the webMethod to applications.   If you believe 
it's important for applications to be explicitly be REST-aware, then go 
out and proselytize.  I think SOAP gives you the building blocks you need, 
but I think we can step back and leave that decision to others. 
Specifically, I'm not convinced we need to spend energy clarifying this to 
the TAG.  Thank you.

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

Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
08/22/2002 11:14 AM

        To:     "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
        cc:     "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Henrik 
Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, jacek@systinet.com, 
jones@research.att.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, 
        Subject:        Re: issue 227

Stuart, I'm in complete agreement with your evaluation of the binding
framework, and I'm not out to set a precedent that other features
need to consider design-time issues.

My concern is that our response[1] to the TAG said this;

"We have defined a new "web method" feature [3] that enables
applications to control the use of GET and POST."

and the proposal[2] they read said (and still says);

"Bindings to HTTP or such other protocols SHOULD use the Web Method
Specification Feature to give applications control over the Web methods
to be used when sending a SOAP message."

If by "application" we meant the runtime chunk of software, including
the SOAP library (if any), rather than code developed by the application
developer, then we should have said that, and not expected the TAG (well,
two thirds of them anyhow 8-) to know this nuance of XMLP WG
nomenclature.  Instead, the word could easily have been interpreted by
the TAG as referring to the application code written by developers.

So ...

If it is the case that I was using a different interpretation of
"application", then I agree that we can close issue 227.  But we should
also clarify our response to the TAG to make it clear what it was that
we were saying.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jun/0006
 [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/06/soap12-part2.html#WebMethodFeature

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 11:47:21 UTC

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