- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:05:09 -0800
- To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comment. The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a CR003 [1]. The Working Group did not agree to make a change to our spec at this point, based on the widespread use of this media type. For a more detailed rationale see [2]. Unless you let us know otherwise by 13 April, we will assume you agree with the resolution of this issue. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR003 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0028.html [ Jonathan Marsh ][ jmarsh@microsoft.com ][ http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes ] > -----Original Message----- > From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:47 PM > To: Jonathan Marsh > Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > Subject: Re: wsdl20-adjuncts vs RFC 4288 > > * Jonathan Marsh wrote: > >I assume you are referring to the specific support for the > >application/x-www-url-form-encoded media type. Are you suggesting the > >functionality should be associated with some different media type (if so > >which one)? Or do you think the ability to describe interactions of > >this sort should be dropped? > > I am not too concerned about the solution at the moment so long as the > specification does not encourage discouraged use of media types. E.g., > rather than a media type, a special string could be used instead. > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2006 23:06:07 UTC