- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:44:15 -0800
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Cc: <Chris.Ferris@sun.com>, <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, <hugo@w3.org>, <jones@research.att.com>, <marc.hadley@sun.com>, <ohurley@iona.com>, <ylafon@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>
Here is a proposal for an updated ednote that may improve understanding the issue. I find it slightly problematic that the current note talks about "binding specifications in particular, vs. other software" as specifications and software doesn't seem to compare. What about: "There is still some discussion about whether we should say more about how communicating SOAP nodes determine whether to express features as part of the underlying protocol binding or within the SOAP envelope proper." Does this capture it? Henrik >Not to be picky nor to put additional burden on Stuart but I >am slightly uncomfortable with the ednote as it stands. I >realize that the purpose is to give some flexibility in how we >want to move forward. However, it seems to be such a central >part of the model that I am wondering whether it would be good >to qualify the differences a bit more explicitly so that >people don't get the impression that we are completely opening >up the floor to suggestions - this was at least not my >impression from today's meeting. > >Could we for example promote Noah's suggestion by providing an >alternative piece of text?
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 20:46:08 UTC