- From: Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:02:45 -0800
- To: "Vinoski, Stephen" <steve.vinoski@iona.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vinoski, Stephen [mailto:steve.vinoski@iona.com] [snip] > The definition does not disallow D&D -- rather, it explicitly does not > include them because they are not necessary. URIs, standard internet > protocols, and non-human-driven application-to-application interaction > are key, but D&D are not, as I and others have already explained. > > > Now, I think we can work this out. > > Since your properties list does not use RFC-2119 terms like MUST > > SHOULD MAY, and it's not been said a WS must possess all properties > > listed. That leaves the room for saying a WS must possess some of > > the properties listed. In that case, then what problem will adding > > D&D to the list cause? Would this work for you? > > Not really, because RFC-2119 is about standards language. Our Web > Services definition need not use standards language, and in fact it > would be best if it didn't, to maximize broadness and > generality. Let's > leave the standards language for our actual standards. You missed the point, Steve. The question was not about using RFC-2119 terms. It's about adding D&D to the list. BTW, what we've been doing is standards work, as far as I'm concerned. I for one am not here to play with words. As for "maximize broadness and generality," would "Web services are the dot in dot-anything" broad enough, gerneal enough? :-) Joe Hui Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 20:02:55 UTC