- From: Jim Webber <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 17:03:12 +0100
- To: "'Glen Daniels'" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Savas Parastatidis'" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Glen: > Cool stuff, but have you noticed that it's exactly what both > WS-Policy and the Features/Properties stuff are trying to > achieve? On the P&F taskforce we are trying to come up with > a way to integrate WS-Policy and the Features stuff into a > single framework. I would personally much rather y'all > jumped into that discussion rather than coming up with Yet > Another Way to do something we all clearly want to enable.... Yes, we saw the WS-Policy stuff, and the reason we came up with this was, "WS-Policy stops short of specifying how policy expressions are discovered or attached to a Web service." > If there are reasons you've discounted the P&F / WS-Policy > work, we'd love to hear them, and if not, please join us and > help make sure we come up with the right thing. What we were thinking, and now looking at the document didn't get in there, was that a WS-Policy description could be one of the things (maybe even _the_ thing) that goes in our <supports> and <requires> elements. It might well be the right grammer to use rather than allowing arbitrary XML as we do now. What do you reckon? Jim
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 12:03:32 UTC