- From: Mountain, Highland M <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:23:43 -0800
- To: "David Fallside (E-mail)" <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "'Oisin Hurley'" <ohurley@iona.com>, "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>, "'Glen Daniels'" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, "'Chris.Ferris@sun.com'"<Chris.Ferris@sun.com>, "'marc.hadley@sun.com'" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, "'Noah Mendelsohn'"<Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "'ylafon@w3.org'" <ylafon@w3.org>, "'Mark A. Jones (E-mail)'" <jones@research.att.com>, "'www-archive@w3.org'" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail)"<skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Henrik Nielsen (E-mail)" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
David, FWIW, we have this text for Monday's meeting : Any binding specification has a set of messaging requirements. Some of these requirements could be satisfied by the underlying protocol's native feature set. Other requirements may need to be provided outside of the underlying protocol. The requirements not provided natively by the underlying protocol of choice will need to be expressed in the resulting binding specification. These requirements will be expressed as features and associated properties. SOAP nodes will have to determine which resident modules satisfy the features outside the scope of the underlying protocol, in order to be compliant with a given binding specification. The last statement is where we need to arrive at a common understanding. Talk to you Monday. Highland
Received on Friday, 2 November 2001 17:21:54 UTC