W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2003

RE: HTTP Binding Issues

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:19:15 -0800
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009d01c2d475$5a3d3ca0$900ba8c0@beasys.com>
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.  


> -----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

Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 17:09:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:28 UTC