RE: HTTP Binding Issues

Are the "leave-as-is" dispositions mean leave the WSDL 1.1 work in 1.2, or
does it mean leave WSDL 1.2 as-is, that is without the 1.1 work?

I must admit, I'm rather surprised at the sudden motivation to do a scenario
driven approach.  I'd be glad to help out on any scenarios in this area.  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:10 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: HTTP Binding Issues
> 
> 
> 
> I took an ACTION to restart discussion on the HTTP binding 
> issues.  Most
> of the issues are about increasing the functionality available in the
> HTTP binding.  Jeffrey did a great job of summarizing the issues and
> proposing dispositions [1] based on the principle of not 
> increasing the
> functionality in the HTTP binding.  His rationale is an 
> obvious lack of
> interest in this functionality by the WG.
> 
> I propose we first address this larger question of what scenarios we
> envision the HTTP binding being used in, and how expressive 
> the binding
> need to be in order to satisfy the needs of those scenarios.  
> Should we
> increase the expressive power of the HTTP binding?
> 
> I will set aside time at this week's telcon to address this question.
> After we've reached some consensus on that question, the individual
> issues Jeffrey categorizes and proposes resolutions to [1] should
> proceed more quickly.  
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html
> 
> 
>