- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:18:02 +0600
- To: "Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>, <edwink@collaxa.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
"Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com> writes: > > basically "implementation defined." That's clearly non-interoperable > > and hence would need to be fixed. > > Surely it is interoperable, precisely because only one side has anything > to do with it. However, it is non-portable. Thank you for the clarification; I stand corrected. > Of course, this is just the choreography:orchestration, > interface/implementation > issue again. Yes I guess so - whether the language is a portable implementation language or not. Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 07:20:43 UTC