- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:01:39 -0500
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I'd like to get a bit of time to try to convince the outbounders of their incompleteness. I am happy to support efforts to add functionality to cover the various usages of outbound ops (events, callbacks etc.) in a clean, unambiguous, interoperable manner. Not doing that amounts to us not doing our job right IMHO. In any case, I don't think the WSDL WG should be publishing a TCP binding. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:42 PM Subject: Outboud ops state of debate > > I promised to send a statement of the proposal that emerged on output > ops at the last telcon. > > The proposal is: > 1) Keep output operations in the spec. > 2) Publish the TCP binding as a note motivating the need to retain > output operations. > 3) Add a non-normative reference to this note from the spec. > 4) State that the HTTP binding simply does not support output > operations. Arthur has an action to investigate what it would mean to > support output ops in the HTTP binding, which may lead to a proposal or > issues, or both. >
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 02:04:09 UTC