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 17:22:22 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FEE@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: 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, xmlp-comments@w3.org

Hi Mark,

Well... I probably have to recuse myself with respect to holding a position
on this matter within the TAG. But FWIW here is what I think...

IMO the TAG's primary concerns were that:

1) important resources be identifiable by URI.
2) that it be possible to make appropriate use of HTTP GET to safely
retrieve (SOAP) representations of (SOAP) resources.

The WG's response to the TAG addressed both these concerns and I don't think
the particular resolution of issue 227 in anyway undermines or materially
changes that response to the TAG. I've made a couple of comments below on
the extracts that you cite. 

Of course that is just my opinion - and it is probably what you would expect
it to be.


Stuart Williams
representing just his own opinion.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 22 August 2002 16:15
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'Mark Baker'; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen;
> jacek@systinet.com; jones@research.att.com; marc.hadley@sun.com;
> moreau@crf.canon.fr; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> 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."

We have not and do not plan to un-say that!

> 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."

I see a SHOULD there. The notion of bindings using features as opposed to
providing support for them is a little awkward, but the onus of the SHOULD
is on the binding - and I read that as emphasising the need for the bindings
(actually binding specifications) to *provide* some means of control that
applications *may* use.

> 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]
> MB
> -- 
> 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 12:23:01 UTC

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