- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:55:32 -0400
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- CC: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
think so, but isn't wsdl's request-response ~= soap's request-response as defined in part2? Given that we already (will) have a formal definition that is defined for use with the HTTP binding, wouldn't it be wise to simply leverage this directly via its URI? I would think that a rigorously defined MEP for solicit-response (if agreement as to what it means can be reached:) ala the treatment that SOAP1.2 Part2 gives its MEPs would be a good thing(tm). It has even been suggested that the wsawg maintain a "registry" of defined MEPs as a service (probably a document that links to the the various MEP spec documents). My $0.02, Chris Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > 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 10:58:46 UTC