- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:49:38 +0200
- To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- CC: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Chris, This sounds good. Would the next step then be to handle the existing WSDL MEPs (e.g. request-response, sollicit-response) the same way, i.e. to outsource their definition and give them a URI? Jean-Jacques. Christopher Ferris wrote: > I'm at a loss here. While some vocabulary that defined > MEPs with angle-brackets might be a good thing(tm), it isn't > at all clear to me that it is needed. SOAP1.2 defines > MEPs and assigns URIs to these formal definitions. It also > recommends in the binding framework that MEPs be named > with a URI[1]. > > I think that rather than treat this through extensibility > in WSDL, that a binding identify the MEPs it supports > with a URI (or qname I suppose, but we may need to do some > coordination on that).
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 10:50:21 UTC