Re: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal

I agree with the idea that we shouldn't repeat what MEX specifies, 
however, you have removed the parts where it states that the 
mex:Metadata for a single Event Source can contain at most one 
wse:EventDescriptions element and only one Notification WSDL per 
Notification Format/@Identifier. These are key constraints that need to 
be stated somewhere.

- gp

On 8/24/2009 1:38 PM, Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Overall I like the flow of this but I tried to remove some extra stuff 
> that I think just adds verbosity w/o a good reason and will just lead 
> to confusion ( like duplicating what MEX and WSDL already tell us).  
> I also removed the unchanged portions of WS-Eventing - to keep it 
> below the w3c mailing list size restriction.  :-)
>
>
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
> public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org wrote on 08/24/2009 02:23:32 PM:
>
> > Attached (or inlined as the case may be) is draft 6 of a proposal
> > for issues 6401/6661. This proposal allows for the use of both the
> > EventDescriptions element and Format-specific Notification WSDLs.
> > There are still some open issues with this version of the proposal,
> > but these can be worked out by the WG. Note that, as per our
> > agreement at the last F2F, the section that describes the binding of
> > wse:EventDescriptions to a Unwrapped Notification WSDL has been 
> marked "TBD".
> >
> > Thanks to Ram, Wu, and Li for their help and feedback. Thanks to
> > their input I think we've got something in which the combination of
> > EventDescriptions and Notification WSDLs offers some value beyond
> > merely serving as a political compromise.
> >
> > - gp